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

same sex marriage

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 2/24/2015 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 817 times Debate No: 70612
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)




I agree that if gays and lesbians get married they cant technically reproduce, but they can always adopt a kid or two to keep the population going and just because they are gay or lesbian doesn't mean the kids will be. its not just that, but there are also bi-sexual, so, a bi-Sexual person could always marry a girl, but have a guy friend get her pregnant, so that her and her wife can be happy together and that way it keeps the human population going.


I happily accept Pro's argument. I look forward to a fun and loving debate, and I do hope to perhaps change the minds of both Pro and voters as I have a pretty strong opinion on this particular topic.

1.) I am going to note the things that Pro agrees to for my own sake in every response, so that I nor the voters might forget.
- Pro admits that gays and lesbians do not reproduce.
- Pro says that gays and lesbians can "keep the population going"
- Pro admits that he is for adultery by saying a friend could procreate with someone else's spouse.

2.) I believe we should both define marriage and become familiar with the reason why such a contract between two people should even exist to begin with.

Marriage should exist so that two people can come together and vow to each other to not only be there for one another forever, but also to raise offspring in such a way that would benefit society through increasing population of that society. The reason of procreation is what gave rise to the reason of the entire institution of marriage in the first place which is to regulate from a social point of view, the obligations and responsibilities based upon pro creation.A279; I'd therefore like to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman who, in principle, procreate and together benefit society through sharing obligations of rearing children and providing needed support for the entire family.

Through this definition, gays and lesbians should not be able to be married because as pro stated they cannot procreate, in principle, and therefore defy the definition of marriage.

Pro says they can keep the population going but that is not true as if everyone were completely gay or lesbian, population would eventually diminish.

Pro admits to agreeing with adultery. This is significant because adultery is even outside the legal terms of a marriage. A marriage that involves more than two people is polygamy and this obviously shouldn't happen for significant reasons. I will list later if needed. Furthermore this is still outside the definition of marriage because it is between two people who can procreate and not more.

Once again thanks for the argument. I would now like your response.
Debate Round No. 1


I would like to state, that I am no expert on laws, but being bi-sexual my self,
I would love to marry a girl.
I see nothing wrong with a girl/boy wanting to marry a girl/boy.
I was walking down the street one day and saw a cute gay couple holding hands as they walked past me.
I wanna be able to see that everywhere, not just where I am from,
cause where I am from same sex marriage is perfectly legal, I have lots of gay/lesbian friends.
I could go on for hours about this but truthfully I think its a dumb thing to argue about.
I say " LET THE PEOPLE BE HAPPY" let them marry who ever they want. if a girl wants a girl, let her be with the girl,
if a boy wants to be with a boy, let him be with the boy.
Its the 21st century
this generation(my generation)
is supposed to help change the way things are in the society and make it better for the generations to come.


Well I'll attempt to show you what is wrong with it. If we allow gays to be married, we degrade what marriage was meant for and therefore gives rise to opportunities of people who want to marry another person in their own family, incest, and even people who might want to marry their own pets. This would be harmful in various ways. Furthermore, gay marriage in itself is pointless due to the fact that, as stated before, marriage is to be used as an agreement between man and woman to share certain responsibilities for both each other and the children they procreate (which in turn benefits society). Homosexual marriage validates and promotes homosexual lifestyle. Civil laws are structuring principles of man's life in society. As such, they play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behavior. They externally shape the life of society, but also profoundly modify everyone"s perception and evaluation of forms of behavior. Legal recognition of same-sex "marriage" would necessarily obscure certain basic moral values, devalue traditional marriage, and weaken public morality.

You also stated "LET THE PEOPLE BE HAPPY" but we do not create laws to make people happy. We create laws to do what is right.

Quite simply, a homosexual marriage is not really a marriage since they cannot, in principle, create any kids which is the point of a relationship to begin with. Male got with female so that they could reproduce and further populate the earth. It is why we were created male and female to begin with.

I look forward to your reply!
Debate Round No. 2


OK, first off incest has nothing to do with this topic, and neither does marrying your pet. its actually kind of rude to act like gay marriage and incest are the same thing, THEIR NOT, gay marriage is two guys wanting to be happy together, incest is 2 family members falling in love, NOT by any means the same thing. saying they are the same is like saying weed is the same as candy. its offensive. and last I checked, there was a thing called ADOPTION, or they can find a couple or teen that got pregnant but did not want the baby. this is why I think there is something wrong with society, gay marriage is perfectly normal. but we totally forgot about the other subject, lesbian marriage, lesbian marriages are amazing, they can get pregnant.

If you want the people to be happy than accept gay and lesbian marriages, there completely natural, and its not like the whole world is either lesbian or gay. with out lesbians and gays the world would be overly populated. so the society should be thanking gays and lesbians.


1. My opponent says I compared gay marriage with incest and bestiality. Of course I realize that these are different and only compared them in a sense that they do not fit the definition of marriage stating , " If we allow gays to be married, we degrade what marriage was meant for and therefore gives rise to opportunities of people who want to marry another person in their own family, incest, and even people who might want to marry their own pets."

2. My opponent states that gay marriage is completely natural. This is untrue. Lets define natural. 1) existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind. 2) of or in agreement with the character or makeup of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something. Certainly I have not seen animals ever get married by the first meaning of natural. In the second definition we actually see that heterosexual marriage is natural, but not homosexual. Heterosexual couples have the human anatomy or "makeup of" procreating or being "together," while homosexual do not. Through the anatomy of the human body we can see that homosexuals do not have the "makeup of" a couple that is "supposed" to be together. By definition Pro is actually wrong in stating that gay marriage is natural. It is just the opposite.

3. Pro also states that overpopulation could happen, but I don't see any evidence that such a thing would happen. In fact I am going to provide evidence of the opposite. 1. We have plenty enough land area. In fact the entire world's population could fit in Texas alone with 1000 square feet per person. 2. We have plenty enough food. In fact just the American population in itself wastes enough food to feed all of the people who are hungry in world (an estimated 870 million). 3. We have plenty enough water. I mean look around. most of the earth is in fact water. We can't drink salt water? Of course not, that is why simply evaporating the water and catching the condensation, makes pure, clean, fresh water. I could go on and on, but I think we get the point that we are far from even considering overpopulation to be a problem.

4. I would also like to note that Pro never really had any arguments against my claims. Only basically stating that gay marriage should be accepted to make people happy. This is a pretty ridiculous claim as we do not allow things or make laws for a minority of people to be happy. Consider murders for example. Killing makes them happy, but we would not allow murder just to make this small minority happy. In the same way we should not allow gays to get married as it could become detrimental to the traditional institution of marriage and weaken public morality as stated in round 2. Furthermore, I am not stating we should take away the rights of gays. I still invite them to get married and exercise their own rights, which is to marry the opposite sex and have kids in such a way that benefits society. After all, we are supposed to marry our best friend and I don't see why a gay guy could not become best friends with a girl and then become married or the other way around.

I'd like to thank my opponent for this debate as I had quite a fun time discussing. I look forward to more debates like this.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by beanall 3 years ago
No, of course not. Notice i used the phrase "in principle" which means not relating to particular circumstances. In principle, a male and female can always procreate, but gays cannot procreate due to their own human anatomy.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
If a couple cannot procreate should they be force to divorce?
Posted by ravi85 3 years ago
the entire population cant b gay as 4 sure . what if the entire pop is straight dont u think our population will blast and we will have to kill each other to survive in a way it is happening in competitive countries like india which has dense population and less means to survive. its wrong to infer that if entire pop b gay or strt. there is a balance. marriage is artificial created by human but sex is natural. and choosing a partner according to ones choice should not be stated natural or unnatural or obnoxious. rules of society changes. and so does the acceptance.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by FaustianJustice 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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: S/G did get distracting, so that award goes to Con, though if the topic is SSM, dragging in morality arguments of bestiality seems underhanded. In addition to that, the arguments from Pro seemed more emotionally inspired than grounded, as such, they were handily refuted by Con. Points to con for arguments.
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 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 Checkmark1 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's spelling and grammar was absolutely awful throughout. Con demolished his feeble arguments from the start, and Pro never could recover... in fact, he barely tried. Con laid out his rebuttals clearly while Pro just let a stream of his unfiltered consciousness flow from his fingers. The result was that Pro's arguments were largely an incoherent jumble of knee-jerk retorts. Con actually backed up with claims with sources. Con won hands down.