The Instigator
Con (against)
2 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
10 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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/4/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,737 times Debate No: 48368
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)




First round is for acceptance. Good luck!



I acceot the challenge presented by the con. Since there were no definitions or structure provided, I will provide my own.

Gay Marriage: two same-sex couples being wed and married.

My burden of proof will be that gay marriage should be allowed.
My opposition's burden of proof will be that gay marriage should not be allowed.

1st round: Acceptance
2nd-4th round- Arguments and rebuttals

I ask that no new arguments be posted in the first round by either side, as it would be an advantage for me having unrefuted arguments on my side.

I wish the opposition luck. If I am caught up in schoolwork, I will not post long arguments. If I am not, I will post medium-sized arguments. Let the debate commence!
Debate Round No. 1


1. Civil unions

Here is what civil unions mean. "Civil union, also referred to as civil partnership or registered partnership, is a legally recognized form of partnership similar to marriage. Beginning with Denmark in 1989, civil unions under one name or another have been established by law in several mostly developed countries in order to provide legal recognition of relationships formed by unmarried same-sex couples and to afford them rights, benefits, and responsibilities similar (in some countries, identical) to those of legally married couples. In some jurisdictions of Brazil, New Zealand, Uruguay, Ecuador, France and the U.S. states of Colorado, Hawaii and Illinois, civil unions are also open to opposite-sex couples"
(1) Again, similar to marriage, they are viewed as partners. Why would they need marriage? They got civil unions which is similar to marriage.


2. No natural reproduction.

They do not further the species in anyway. They choose to be gay or lesbian, but many want children. They want to feel like a normal, straight, red blooded American. So they decide to adopt or go into vitro. They then have a child in the home.

3. Having gay or lesbian parents are really bad for kids!

Don't believe it? Here is the proof. (1) it says they are more likely to have depression, anxiety, and mental and social problems. They are also a lot more likely to rely on welfare. Another study says that kids raised by homosexual couples are 4 times more likely to have sex against their will! (2) children are also more likely to be homosexuals whether from influence or being forced to be homosexual!



4. Marriage is sacred to straight people

Straight people have been going through this ceremony for thousands of years. In fact, we gave them civil unions to keep them from interfering with marriage! Here's my next point!

5. What's next?

This is not rhetorical. We are giving him the sacred ceremony of marriage! What is next? We all have to become homosexuals? Let me remind you they are only 1% of the population. Does that mean we are going to change everything for one percent of the world's population. I watched and the and played on, and I found out in the 90's all they wanted was acceptance that they are human. Now they want marriage!

6. Gay people are not born gay!
People are not born gay! It is like saying I am born straight. I could choose to be gay at any time. This research proves my theory.

Case 7:

This was your strongest argument. It took me a while to find out how to refute this, but I know how. it says lesbians are 69% more likely for welfare, and gays are 57% more likely. (1) So, lets calculate. America population is 5% gay, (2) America's population is 313.9 million. (3) If you calculate, it goes to 9 million gays on welfare in the USA. This basically allows them to go on food stamps, and a lot of times get their house payment drastically lowered or payed. Lets just say, the average gay family of 2 consumes about 4,000$ a month. The government will probably pay 3,000$ of that. So, let multiply, 9 million gays, times 3000. It would equal about 26,838,450,000$ billion dollars monthly. In annual tax revenue, they would make 64,000,000$ in tax revenue. How could this possibly cover it? Each case is different. Even at 2000$, it would cost 17,000,000,000$. So, my opponent's argument is invalid. Don't believe me? Try it for your self! First go 313,900,000 minus 95 percent. Then, go minus 43 percent. Then multiply by 3,000, and that is how much it will cost for all gay families. Leave out about a few billion for gays who do not want to get married. Before pro tries to refute this, remember, a lot of gays have adopted children. This is about how much it will cost our government.




Thank you. I now hand over the debate to the best debater I know, Dtaylor.


Thank you for the generous compliment, con. You're the best 12 year old debater I know on this site. Maybe even beside me, we'll see (that rhymes!) I will only so rebuttals due to lack of characters. Not many sources will be used because it is refuting, not arguing.

I. Civil Unions

A. My opponent starts off by saying that same-sex couples have civil unions, which means that gays don't need marriage. However, this is false. My opponent says that "civil unions" is similar to marriage, which means that he concedes that it is not the same thing. Therefore, it is not equal rights and not marriage.

B. Second, civil unions is basically people saying "you have civil unions, don't get all pissed." It is not the same thing as marriage. It is like calling a gay a "monkey" but giving him/her human rights, which does not demonstrate equality. Also, my opponent shows that opposite-sex couples can are also open to civil unions, which just makes more discrimination. A straight person is open to something that a gay person can do, but a gay person isn't open to what a straight person can do?

C. Next, and last, my opponent states that they don't need marriage because they have civil unions. However, I have already showed that civil unions is not equal to marriage. They want marriage because they want to be seen and treated as equal. Therefore, they need marriage because they want to be seen as equal. Also, you used wikipedia as a source, which is not reliable.

II. No natural reproduction.

A. I'm not exactly sure what the problem here is, but I will refute it to the best of my ability. My opponent states that they do not further the species of human in any way. Again, false. They further humanity by adopting children and giving them a home [1]. Thus, they improve society as a whole by making less children homeless or forced into an adoption facility. One does not need to mate to further the human race. Does a straight person who can't mate not further the human race? No! He could be a scientist or whatnot. Furthering the human race is not just about sexual reproduction.

B. Second, he states that gays want to be a normal red-blooded American so they adopt or go into vitro. So? Gays want to be seen as an equal American. Also, it is very rude to not call a gay person not even having the same blood color as a normal American. They both have blue blood and red blood when it hits air. There is nothing wrong with gay adoption (it may be better, I will go into that later). Also, not that many gays really go vitro, dude.

III. Having gay or lesbian parents is really bad for kids!

A. The opposition states that having gay or lesbian parents is bad for kids. Then he uses two links that are not reliable. The first link, in the title, says that the study "draws fire from experts." The second source is based on a very small sample size, thus rendering it not reliable. I would take these two sources into consideration if they were more reliable. For now, I will use the strategy of crossing out the opponent's links.

B. Your links "prove" that gay parents are bad for kids. I have a few links of my own that can cross yours out [2][3][4]. See? Nothing is proven about your argument. I have more reliable sources and more of them to support my argument. For example, link [3] is the biggest study ever done on this topic. So in reality, gays have happier and closer families and beautiful children. Your argument is false.

IV. Marriage is sacred to straight people

A. Before I destroy this argument, I will state what the opposition says. He says that marriage is sacred to straight people. If marriage is really so sacred, why do so many marriages end in divorce? Second, sacred means "connecting with a God." Do you think that if it was truly sacred, people would still break up after marriage and offend God? Nope.

B. Next, gays would not "interfere" with marriage. The definition of "interfere:"

Interfere: prevent (a process or activity) from continuing or being carried out properly.

Would gays prevent a marriage from ever happening again, or discontinuing it? No, they would not. Would they change the way a marriage is carried out so much that it would not be recognized as "proper?" No, they would not. Therefore, gays wouldn't even come close to "interfering" with marriage, but just be another group that can be married. Nothing happened when dark-skinned people were allowed a proper marriage, why would anything happen with the gays?

V. What's next?

A. Maybe WWIII, another AIDS outbreak, a zombie apocalypse, I can't foresee the future. However, I can predict it. We would definitely not have to become gay. When dark-skinned people were allowed equal rights, did we all become dark-skinned? No, we did not. So there is no reason to believe that we would become gay if gay marriage was allowed... it's just absurd. DO you really think the government is going to line us all up and make us gay before they discover a cure for cancer, AIDS, solve world hunger, end all wars, and solve the energy crisis? No! The only thing that can really "make" you gay is Big Daddy V. Look him up/

B. Second, he states that gays only make up 1% of the world's population, so why change anything for them? What my opponent fails to realize is that 1% of the population is north of 70,000,000 people. So yes, we should make a change if it is affecting 70,000,000 people (7,200,000,000 people in world [5].) And second, it would not change "everything." Humans would not be breathing water and fishes would not be going off ski jumps at the Death Valley Winter Olympics in 2018. Though that would be awesome.

C. Last, my opponent states that in the 1990's, all gays wanted was to be seen as humans and be accepted. Now they want marriage. So? Do you think that gays will come right out and ask for marriage when they aren't even seen as human? No, they would not. It is a process of becoming an equal part of human society. For example, in 1980, all we wanted was a glass of beer and a game of pac man. Now, we want smartphones, an HD football game and 20 gallons of Coke. Point is, times have changed. Do you really want human equality to stay stuck, unevolved, in the 90's?

VI. Gay people are not born gay!

A. In the opposition's last argument, he states that gays are not born gay, and has some sources to back it up, and claims he could choose to be gay at any time. There are multiple problems with this, all which I must address in less than 1,000 letters. First, his links are mostly religious. Religious sites post false data to turn you against Gay Marriage and back into the beliefs of your religion. The religious sources are not accurate.

B. Second, I have a source to back me up [6]. It also states that a popular study used was conducted in 1962... 52 years ago. Times have changed. If I could choose to be gay, I would go kiss Ryan Gosling to see what the women see in him. I mean come on, he isn't that hot... I also bet you can't become gay when you want to. What person would choose to be discriminated against and not have equal rights?

C. Real quick because I have practically no characters left. Studies have shown (by NatGeo) that a gay man's brain is more closely related to a straight woman's brain that a straight man's brain [7]. Therefore, being gay is not a choice, and if it was, you would practically have little control because your brain is programmed to see men as attractive.

All right, out of characters. Thanks for reading! Back to you, con!

Debate Round No. 2


Rebuttal 1:

Well, they are now equall to all the straight singles and couple
that arent married. You must also realize that many straight couples also are engaged in civil union. Why cant they just live together? Why can't they just get a civil union? Don't say it is not a basic human right. The most recent event is that european court has made gay mariage not a human right! (1) Also, you had a scientific error. No human has blue blood!


Rebuttal 2:

Gay adoption is worse for kids. (Lets dive right into this shall we?)

Rebuttal 3:

Okay, we are gonna play the "that source isn't valid game." Fine. Lets go. CBS has been around since the start of TV. They are reliable. The have our news! Are you calling our world news incorrect? Also, how do we know your links aren't made by a liberal for gay marriage?

Rebuttal 4:

The catholic church and many other Christian religions use marriage as a rite. This is why they are against it
Their faith (not mine, I am just for family values) says no to gays! This is basically defiling their religion, and as the ammendmant states, everyone has freedom of religion.

Rebuttal 5:

Here we go again. Another " this is just like the equall rights movements to end black discrimination" analogy. Dude, I am really disapointed. The blacks were being assalted, killed, raped, and stolen from, and no one did anything about it! Why the hell are you comparing the two! The blacks were straight. They served this country and earned their rights. However, whay will gays push for next?

Rebuttal 6:

I have so many sources, some that aren't religious backing me up. You have two. No contest.

Case 1:

Lets plug in the real numbers. On your basic family of 3 gays., it would cost 20, 684 dollars per year for one family. 3 people. This is yearly. Now, lets involve the numbers dtaylor himself gave to me himeslf

=186,156,000,000 dollars. In 6 years, it would cost 1 trillion, yes, one trillion to this nation that is already trillions in debt!

Overall. Keep good ol family values. Save this debt ridden country money. Just let the gays live together and have civil unions



First off, tremendous thanks to bsh1 for helping me with all of the legal documents (UDHR, ICCPR) and other things.

Due to lack of characters, I will only post arguments in this round. I will refute in the fourth round since no rules have said that I couldn't.

I. Opinions

A. A poll representation of gay marriage

Polls on gay marriage are widespread and credible, as issued by the U.S government. The polls show us that the majority of Americans are for gay marriage [1]. If the majority of the population believes that gay marriage should be legal, why should the U.S government rule in favor of the lesser amount of population? Below are poll results:

Support: 59%

Oppose: 34%

Unsure: 7% (as of March 2.)

If only 34% oppose gay marriage, while 59% support it, there would be less people not in favor of the ruling. Plus, another 7% don't care. In another poll, recording a smaller sample size (2,000 people) had almost the same result [2]:

Support: 52%

Oppose: 43%

Unsure: 5%

Again, another poll shows that the majority are for gay marriage. There you have it, the majority of U.S people approve of gay marriage. If you want more polls, I can give you some.

B. A debating view on gay marriage

I only use this argument because all of my peers on this site have a passion for debating and are more inclined to follow the opinions of expert debaters and their peers. My first example here is on USN, a U.S debate site [3]. There were 5 articles- all written by experts with a college and/or graduate degree- approving or apposing gay marriage. People who read the articles could vote up or down. The results are as follows:

Pro (3 articles): 2,260 total points

Con (2 articles): -1514 total points

On another debate site [4], I checked out the readers' comments off of the pro and con arguments. The three top voted comments all approved of gay marriage:

2nd best voted comment: "LOVE IS LOVE. Period." -Savanna

3rd best voted comment: "Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?" -James W.

In conclusion of this argument, not only do the majority of polled Americans support gay marriage, the majority of debaters and experts approve of gay marriage also. If most approve, then it is not beneficial for the government to not legalize gay marriage.

II. Legally, and morally, accepted

A. Gay marriage is legally accepted by documents such as the Constitution and the International Covenant. I will quote both, starting with the International Covenant. Article 23, law 2, states the following:

"The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized."

Notice how it does not say if it has to be "between a man and a woman." It does not specify if it has to be opposite-gender marriage. Therefore, gay and lesbian's rights to marry must be recognized, as the law states.

B. Next, the Constitution, the foundation of America as we know it, states [6]:

4th Amendment: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal."

This means that all men shall have equal rights, and that no one shall be treated differently than any other man. This means that all men and women, same-sex or not, shall have the right ofchoice, and they shall have the right to choose to marry. You already said that gay marriage is not a human right, which is not relevant since all gays and straights shall have the right of choice.

C. The UDHR, or Universal Declaration of Human Rights, declares the same thing. Article 1 states the following [6]:

"All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights they are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

This document is made from representatives from around the world and represents principle in human nature. Not allowing a group of people to participate in a worldwide action that has been around for thousands of years just due to their sexual orientation violates the principle of human action. In no way is this acting in a spirit of brotherhood, and in no way is it free and equal in both dignity and rights.

To sum up this argument, not allowing gay marriage is both a violation of law and principle of both the U.S and the people living inside of the country. To keep America a great, civilized country, we should try to follow all laws and principle to help us have a better reputation.

III. It's going to win sooner or later

A. My third argument will be that it will win sooner or later. Since '08, 17 states have legalized or is going to legalize gay marriage [7]. Illinois is going to legalize it on June 1st. Second, 8 of the total 18 states have legalized gay marriage in 2013, which suggests that the gay marriage idea is getting more widespread. Out of the total 18, only 5 states have legalized it before '10. That means it is really speeding up.

B. Now, allow us to dive deeper down into the statistics. Of the 18 states, 5 states legalized gay marriage by court decision. This means the court found gay marriage legal by law. Another 3 states legalized gay marriage by popular vote, which meant the people favored gay marriage. The remaining 10 were legalized by state legislature (kind of like state congress).

Rebuttal I:

I have already explained this to you. If you would just READ, then you'd see why they can't accept a civil union. First off, it is not equal to marriage. Second off, straight people can engage in civil unions, while gays can't engage in marriage. So it is two options to one, and that is not equal. The gays are trying to build equality, which is the main reason that they can't accept civil unions. Also, marriage may not be a right, but choice is a right. Each human should have the right of choice, and gays should be able to
choose to get married or engaged in a civil unions, just like straight people can. Second, your link says "christianvoice." Also, the Supreme Court of the U.S.A has ruled that marriage is a right [8].

Rebuttal II:

Gay adoption is not worse for children, as my links have shown. Want more? Here you go [9][10]. From link [10], it says:

"In a 2010 review of virtually every study on gay parenting, New York University sociologist Judith Stacey and University of Southern California sociologist Tim Biblarz found no differences between children raised in homes with two heterosexual parents and children raised with lesbian parents."

So gay parents are either better or the same as straight parents, as virtually every study has shown.

Rebuttal III:

Oh for the love of- READ. I did not call CBS not reliable, I just stated the title "Draws fire from experts." This means experts thought something was not right with the study, or it went against other studies, making THE STUDY unreliable. Second, I know my links aren't liberal for gay marriage because many of them, such as Huffington Post, go against some liberal topics.

I will have to refute the rest in the 4th round. No new arguments may be presented (as I stated in the first round) only rebuttals and/or polishing up. Thank you for your time, and I hand this debate over to Cooldudebro! Good luck!











Debate Round No. 3


Rebuttal 1:

First, I would like to know where the poll was taken. It could have been taken in California known as the gay state. I could just as easy show you a poll surveyed in Texas that is the exact opposite.

Rebuttal 2:

Again, this is not surveying the whole population. Savanna may be a 9 year old girl that has non idea about the topic. James may be a hormonal 16 year old, willing to f**k anything in sight. You have no idea of knowing who votes in these polls.

Rebuttal 3 :

I will grant that. However, then why was it illegal?Name one person on God's green earth that thinks they are equal to everyone. The rich can pay their way out of a crime, yet, a middle class man has to work for it. Is that equal right?

Rebuttal 4:

This is like saying, we should make rape legal because it is goanna happen anyways.

Rebuttal 5:

Why not just fight to make civil unions equal to marriage?

Rebuttal 6:

I say we can fight this all day. However, your links seem more written by liberals, while mine actually are neutral on the subject. I say that makes mine a little more accurate. (Especially 10. That was very liberal.)

Ladies and Gentleman. Gay marriage is a very serious issue. I ask, why not just make civil unions equal to marriage? That away, both liberals and conservatives are happy. Why does it have to be marriage? Civil unions can be upgraded giving them the same rights! Also, when you see the total cost of gay marriage, you will easily see it is not worth it. Our debt is about $17,500,000,000,000,00 (1) We can not afford to add anymore to the US debt. With gay marriage, we would add 1 trillion every 5 years to that debt. This would mean funding for education, military, and all the departments would have to be cut drastically to make gay marriage possible. Why just upgrade civil unions or let them live together? Even if you don't agree with conservative morals, you must believe in math and money.

Thank you.



Due to lack of characters, I had to post my argument on Google docs. The link is below. Thank you for the debate, cooldudebro. You did great. My rebuttals:

Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by RebelRebelDixieDixie01 6 years ago
Well, dtaylor, how can you be a Jew when the Torah specifically says to kill gay people?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by kbub 6 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: The economic arguments Con provided were not convincing, and Con severely lost on the human rights' part.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:12 
Reasons for voting decision: The debate seemed evenly matched however Pro used google documents to exceed the character limit so conduct to Con. *Update* Con had poor round three sources, sources to Pro.
Vote Placed by bsh1 6 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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro absolutely should not have exceeded the character limit. However, when we only evaluate the rounds in which Pro did not exceed the limit, Pro is clearly winning the debate. Con has a lack of reliable evidence, makes numerous warrantless statements, and in general has less depth in his assertions than does Pro. Therefore, I grant arguments and sources to Pro; but grant conduct to Con as a reprimand for Pro's actions in the final round. Solid debate.

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