Instigator / Pro

Gay marriage should be allowed.


The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
Better sources
Better legibility
Better conduct

After 2 votes and with 4 points ahead, the winner is...

Publication date
Last updated date
Number of rounds
Time for argument
Two days
Max argument characters
Voting period
One week
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Contender / Con

So this is a debate. The topic is on the title position. Religious conservatives and homophobes are not encouraged. Personal feelings are to be inferior to social samples and anthropological evidence.

Round 1
I will start by saying that Gay marriage does not harm anyone directly. 

The only reason something should be outlawed is that it could potentially harm at least one thing. Hunting is prohibited in many nations because it harms the animals meant to be protected. Smoking weed is illegal in some nations because it is addictive and causes people to get diseases. Loitering is illegal in some places in just any nation because the people with the real deal will experience true difficulty going inside. 

Now, you might think that it is wrong to let a man and a man marry, but I think it is not wrong.

First, you agreed not to use reasons such as "Jesus said so" or "Gay people should die" by reading the description. Thus if you use any of these two reasons, the judges around may take off conduct points for you. 

Claims that I know the opposition camps would use against gay marriage include:
1) Kids need mommy and daddy to live good
2) Same-sex marriage defeats one major purpose of marriage: reproduction.
I am here stating this because I know this might be stated by you, so eliminating up to 2 points from your side will reduce my effort when I am in the next round.

Since this competition is about the raw clash of ideas, not the raw power of logic, a good source can be self-explanatory and it can win the debate with little effort of the debater and more in the source itself.

So, I will present the Link here as a reasonable source that can eliminate up to 2 points.

1) Kids need mommy and daddy to live good
I will start the countering of the argument with a study shown in the source.

Since that report was published in 2002, a number of additional studies have been published showing that children with same sex parents do at least as well on the outcomes studied as children as opposite sex parents.
This shows that there are studies both proving that gay marriages both are and aren't bad for children, making the topic of whether gay marriage makes children bad undefined. Since nothing is certain until it is, that study is not sufficient to prove that gay marriage is bad, and since it is not bad, it should be allowed.

Also, this report was outdated. If you say that earth is flat because some sage in about 3000 BC said so, you might as well be wrong because newer reports have disproved that. 

2) Same-sex marriage defeats one important purpose of marriage: reproduction
I will disprove this point also. That source did not straight up disprove the second point, but something else does. 

While then, I will present statistics. 
Over 40% of women in the US have no children, meaning that reproduction is not the top priority of marriage and that a marriage can go with no reproduction.

Also, Gay marriage can adopt(and many will do it), meaning that there will be fewer orphans around. It might not be a lot, but it is better than none. If gay marriage is not legal, then less married couples will adopt consider if they feel good just by having coitus, why adopting?

Conclusion: Gay marriage should be allowed because:
1) Its children behave relatively the same as ones from the heterosexual marriages, meaning it does not harm children
2) Reproduction is not the top priority of marriage, love is. 

This explains why gay marriage is not wrong.
This explains why reproduction is not the top priority of marriage.

Vote PRO!
As I stated in the comments, I will not argue from a religious perspective as I think there is other compelling reasons to exclude homosexuals from marrying as well.

I think we first need to address the presumption that not allowing homosexuals to marry or, more precisely, to obtain a marriage license is the same as outlawing it. Obtaining a marriage license is requesting that the government legally recognize the union of two people, thereby granting all the responsibilities and privileges accompanying that union. From the perspective of the government, a marriage license is given to encourage people to marry as a subsidized, legally binding partnership. The marriage license is given when a certain set of criteria have been met. It's not illegal to not meet the criteria, it just renders you ineligible for the license. So the argument should be more focused on why the government encourages individuals to marry, and whether homosexuals meet that criteria.

My opponent has astutely identified two of the main arguments against homosexuals being allowed to marry. Because a preemptive rebuttal was made, I will offer both a positive argument as well as a defense.

Reproduction as an Essential Component of Marriage
The government encourages reproduction because it helps maintain the population. This is a common argument because of how fundamental it is. A nation needs people to survive. Marriage is not the only context in which children are produced, but a male/female sexual relationship is (excluding uncommon fertilization practices and such).  A marriage license gives financial and legal incentive for parents to produce and raise children. The Encyclopedia Britannica states that "For the population in a given area to remain stable, an overall total fertility rate of 2.1 is needed, assuming no immigration or emigration occurs." ( Thus, it is beneficial for the government to maintain that fertility rate, and the incentive of marriage is one of the most efficient and least intrusive means for them to do so.

The statistic provided by my opponent has nothing to with our topic and should be disregarded. It is labeled "Percentage of childless women in the United States in 2018." There is no distinction between married and unmarried women and the majority of that percentage comes from the age group of 15-19 years old, a group that is mostly unmarried ( Just for the sake of argument though, let's say that 40% of married women did not want nor planned to have children. That would still leave 60% with the opposite view, meaning that a majority of women do view reproduction as a priority in marriage. That would lead to a conclusion that is opposite of my opponent's claim.

The Benefits of Heterosexual Couples Raising Children
Once a child is created, it needs supervision and care as it matures. The best method of ensuring this care is for the child to be raised by the mother and father. If the parents do not care for the child, someone has to take on that responsibility. If there is no individual or group to care for that child through fostering or adopting, it would fall to the government to take responsibility. The way this would happen in modern America would be to pay someone to care for that child. Rather than creating a significant financial burden on taxpayers, it makes far more sense to offer incentives to the biological parents to stay in a permanent relationship to raise the child.

My opponent's argument is that there are conflicting studies as to the effect on children of homosexual couples, therefore homosexuals should be allowed to marry. I would actually agree to a certain extent that it is hard to make an authoritative conclusion about the specific effects of homosexual parents on a child's development only based on studies. However, I think my opponent made the wrong conclusion:

"Since nothing is certain until it is, that study is not sufficient to prove that gay marriage is bad, and since it is not bad, it should be allowed. "
Even if you can't definitively prove something to be bad, that does not mean that thing is good or even neutral. Not only that, you also have to determine what makes something "good." We have not heard any arguments as to why homosexuals marrying is good, we have only heard why it might not be bad.

The government's recognition of the legal union of marriage has nothing to do with providing people a license to affirm their emotions or affections. A person does not need a marriage license to live with someone else in an intimate relationship. A common argument is that people who love each other should be able to get married (my opponent also points this out).  The problem with this argument is that love is not a requirement for a marriage license, nor does the government revoke a license if it is found the couple no longer loves each other. What about polygamists, pedophiles, or incestuous relationships? Should all of them be allowed to marry if they are "in love," however the government would define that? If marriage is redefined to include homosexuals, the same argument can be and has been made for these other groups. Marriage cannot be redefined for every group claiming some form of sexual deviancy. That means that the legal union of marriage should remain strictly between a man and a woman because the government gains no benefit from issuing marriage licenses to homosexuals.

So far, the main arguments presented by my opponent have been that homosexuals should be allowed to marry because...
  1. it does not harm anyone directly. (I will address this in the next round)
  2. there are studies showing both positive and negative effects on children raised by homosexual couples, and we should ignore the negative studies in favor of the positive ones
  3. some women, regardless of marital status or age, do not prioritize having children.

In the next round, I will more fully address the effects and consequences of homosexuality and why it should not be encouraged by allowing them to marry. I think it would be important to hear my opponent provide arguments that show what societal benefits support homosexuals being allowed to marry.

Round 2
I will try my best to refute your claims.

Reproduction as an Essential Component of Marriage
Refuting this entire section. 

However, the proportion of childless adults in the population has increased significantly since then. The proportion of childlessness among women aged 40–44 was 10% in 1976, reached a high of 20% in 2005, then declined to 15% in 2014.[14] In Europe, childlessness among women aged 40–44 is most common in Austria, Spain and the United Kingdom (in 2010-2011).
The US had up to 20% of married couples with no children at one point in time, then at this time, it declined back to 9%. However, 9% means nothing of being neglected, because 9% means millions of people in the US. I have no idea how you get the idea that 40% of the women supporting something means that this thing holds basically zero value, but if there is near 10% of married women in the US that have no children, it means reproduction isn't the most vital purpose for marriage. Reproduction may have a large value in marriages for people that actually want children, but remember that many marriages where neither the husband nor the wife wants to have children exists. 

let's say that 40% of married women did not want nor planned to have children. That would still leave 60% with the opposite view, meaning that a majority of women do view reproduction as a priority in marriage.
Remember that:
1) We are talking about whether gay marriages should be allowed or not;
2) Reproduction being important doesn't mean that gay marriage should not be allowed.

I will agree that more than 60% of the women want to reproduce, but that doesn't mean we have to reproduce once married or that gay marriages should not be allowed. That is not a concession. 

My opponent's argument is that there are conflicting studies as to the effect on children of homosexual couples, therefore homosexuals should be allowed to marry. I would actually agree to a certain extent that it is hard to make an authoritative conclusion about the specific effects of homosexual parents on a child's development only based on studies. However, I think my opponent made the wrong conclusion.
I may have used a confusing and maybe incorrect manner of sentencing in the previous round, so I will say it clearly: The study that shows children from gay marriages behave worse than ones from heterosexual families is less recent from the study that doesn't. Do you understand now? Since science is evolving, a more recent study would presumably be more reliable. The text even used this as a reason, especially no one pointed out how reliable those are in the first place. I think the latter is more reliable because it is more recent. Are you saying that because one study shows it, it is a must, like me in the last round?

Then at the same time when you disproved me, you'd disprove yourself because this didn't show that gay marriages are bad either. I don't know about the mother and father, because babies could well enough grow with same-sex parents through adoption.

Also, basically the world wants it to be legal. You can't refute that, can you?

3: Why can't gay people marry?

New sources:

First, I will highlight my key arguments that were not addressed. Then, I
will offer some comments in response to my opponent's rebuttal. Last, I
will answer the questions that my opponent has raised in round 2.

Uncontested Arguments
We should not view the issue from the perspective of whether or not
homosexual marriage should be a crime. Rather, we should determine whether
or not the government should consider homosexuals as being eligible for a
marriage license.

The government helps maintain the population by offering marriage licenses
as an incentive for couples to produce and raise children. It is
impractical to offer these incentives to homosexuals for this reason.

The government helps itself avoid the financial responsibility of caring
for children by encouraging biological parents to raise the children that
they produce with the incentive of marriage. It is impractical to offer
these incentives to homosexuals.

The government and society gain little to no benefit by allowing
homosexuals to marry. If this is true, the marriage incentives become an
unnecessary burden on the taxpayer.

The government should not offer marriage licenses simply as an affirmation
of affection between people.

Reproduction as an Essential Component of Marriage
You are continuing to misuse and misrepresent the numbers. The Wikipedia
percentages you just cited are for all women ages 40-44, not for married
couples. I don't want to get off in the weeds on this statistic so I will
just make two observations:

1. Your statistic is irrelevant.
You are trying to make a point that there are married women who have no
intention of having children. The statistics you provided include all women
regardless of marital status. For the statistic to be relevant, you would
have to show how many married women have intentionally chosen not to have

2. Your argument is irrelevant.
It seems you are trying to say that if there are any married couples who do
not have children, then the purpose of marriage cannot be reproduction. If
that were true, then we would have to also say that if there are any
married couples who do not love each other, then the purpose of marriage
cannot be love. So far, you have only said that the purpose of marriage is
love, so your argument is self-refuting.

The Benefits of Heterosexual Couples Raising Children
In terms of raising children, you have made two different claims. First,
you stated,  "This shows that there are studies both proving that gay
marriage both are and aren't bad for children, making the topic of whether
gay marriage makes children bad undefined." Then you later said of
homosexual marriage, "Its children behave relatively the same as ones from
the heterosexual marriages, meaning it does not harm children." You cannot
argue that the effect on children is inconclusive, and then later say that
it actually is conclusive in your favor. The only evidence provided for
either claim was you saying that some guy said that some unnamed studies
say that there is little difference between these children. This is nothing
more than hearsay. I would personally like to see something more
convincing, or at least a primary source.

Regarding your comments about dismissing "outdated" studies, a study should
be judged based on it's method and the merit of it's conclusion. While the
date it is published can help indicate its value, I see no reason to
discount one study simply because a more recent one has reached a different
conclusion. You have not provided any citations for an actual study,
including the "outdated" study from 2002 you mentioned. If you want me to
debate you about the validity of particular studies, please provide a
specific citation.

Let me offer some sources on the topic.

Steven Rhoads, a professor at the University of Virginia published a book
outlining how marriages and parenting typically both thrive most when a man
and women take on certain gender-typical roles (Steven Rhoads, Taking Sex
Differences Seriously, Encounter Books, 2004). This shows there is more
than just one scholarly source promoting heterosexual marriage as the best
form of parenting.

Judith Stacey, who is a sociologist and advocate for homosexual civil
marriage, has observed that a large number of children raised by lesbian
mothers were more likely to report a homoerotic relationship or homoerotic
attractions (Judith Stacey and Timothy Biblarz, "(How) Does the Sexual
Orientation of Parents Matter?" American Sociological Review 66: 159-183.)

The CDC reported that 70% of new HIV diagnoses were from gay and bisexual

A study from Omega: Journal of Death and Dying came to this conclusion from
their study:
The pattern of early death evident in the homosexual obituaries is
consistent with the pattern exhibited in the published surveys of
homosexuals and intravenous drug abusers. Homosexuals may have experienced
a short lifespan for the last 140 years; AIDS has apparently reduced it
about 10 percent. Such an abbreviated lifespan puts the healthfulness of

If homosexual parents increase the risk of their children having homosexual
tendencies, they are actually hurting the child by influencing them toward
a homosexual life that leads to much higher risk of early death or diseases
like AIDS. They are also likely subjecting the child to the early death of a parent.

 Questions From Round 2

"Also, basically the world wants it to be legal. You can't refute that, can you?"
This is a hasty generalization that you did not even attempt to
substantiate. I will not take on the responsibility of disproving your
claim that "basically the whole world" is in favor of homosexual marriage.

"Why can't gay people marry?"
We are not arguing whether homosexuals can or
can't marry. I am arguing that they shouldn't be allowed to be legally
married. For further reference, please see my arguments from rounds 1 and 2

Round 3
First, this is to be quoted.
Sociologists studying marriage and divorce rates now have a huge body of statistics to rely on and various notable studies have been conducted.
These studies generally agree that:
  • The divorce rate of same-sex marriages tends to be significantly lower than that of heterosexual marriages. One study conducted by the Williams Institute at the University of California Los Angeles found that 2% of the total number of married straight couples get divorced, compared to about 1% of married same-sex couples.
  • The divorce rate of lesbian marriages is always significantly higher, and in some cases, nearly twice than that for gay male marriages.This is consistent with the general finding that women are usually the initators of divorce in heterosexual marriages.

So, the conclusion here:
1. Fewer homosexuals have divorced.
2. Lesbian marriages have a higher rate of divorce than Gay men's marriages but compared to the other statistics, neither are as likely to divorce as heterosexual couples. 

refuting Marriage is for Reproduction
This is a relatively religious view of what Marriage is, and none are reproduction. 
My opponent may be skeptical about this one:
3. Completeness
God designed Eve to complete that which was lacking in Adam’s life. “And Adam said, … She shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man” (Genesis 2:23).
It has been noted that gay people can complete each other the same way Eve completes Adam and a woman completes a man in an average heterosexual marriage.

3. Couples are more likely to legally formalize their relationship when marriage is an option, as opposed to a marriage-equivalent domestic partnership or civil union registration in states where only those options are allowed.
5. A smaller percentage of same-sex couples register or marry in comparison to straight couples, but if current trends continue the marriage/registration rates will be similar in about ten years.

First, marriage is much more attractive to same-sex couples than a legally equivalent registration as civil union or domestic partners. This finding is consistent with other studies that have shown that same-sex couples are more interested in the social symbolism and community acceptance that is bestowed by marriage, as opposed to the "dry" technical benefits of a domestic partnership or civil union.
Conclusion 3: Love is the primary purpose of Marriage and not procreation.

I would refute that "If someone doesn't love, love is not essential for marriage". No, Love is essential to marriage, not procreation. Love comes first, and procreation comes later.
This, below, are primary sources from atheists viewing Marriages.

So in conclusion, Marriages doesn't mean procreation. Also, it is better to stay married than to be divorced, so Gay marriages clearly win here, meaning it should be allowed.

Also, you did not prove why Gay marriages shouldn't be allowed. It just having a few side effects doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed. Just by having a bit more cases of HIV doesn't mean millions of US citizens are going to suffer from marriages. They want to marry and they are Gay. If they don't have HIV at all, then they should at least be able to marry. The problem occurs on that Gay people get HIV instead of being Gay. If enough prevention is being done, then Gay marriages are supposed to be legal.

And That is all.
I want to clarify the purpose of this debate. The topic is "Gay marriage should be allowed." It seems necessary that we are referring to some entity that has the power to allow or disallow certain marriages. Since this is not a religious debate, we are not talking about the church. It would make sense then that we are talking about the government. I referenced this in round one and have heard no objection. Thus, we are not debating what personal reasons homosexuals have for desiring to be married. We are debating whether the government should allow marriage to include homosexuals who already desire to be married for any reason.

Divorce Rates
It is always a good idea to thoroughly check your sources before citing them. I tried clicking the link for the Williams Institute study and it does not work. Your Wikipedia citation actually mentions this Williams Institute study. Wikipedia explains that the Washington Post had to retract a headline relating to this study due to faulty calculations:

"A 2011 study for states with available data initially reported that the dissolution rates for same-sex couples were slightly lower on average (on average, 1.1% of all same-sex couples were said to divorce each year, ranging from 0% to 1.8% in various jurisdictions) than divorce rates of different-sex couples (2% of whom divorce annually).The Washington Post retracted a headline about this report because the study had incorrectly calculated the percentage due to an error in capturing when the same-sex marriages began. As a result, the corrected findings show a 2% divorce rate for same-sex couples—the same as opposite-sex couples." (

Here is the link to the actual Washington Post article:

Your Huffington Post article, where the bulk of your citations come from, references the same faulty Williams Institute study and both should be discarded as reliable sources. Due to the questionable sources and faulty calculations, I think it is right for me to disregard this argument about divorce rates.

"refuting Marriage is for Reproduction"
This is another example of why it is important to check your sources. You said, "This is a relatively religious view of what Marriage is, and none are reproduction." Let me quote reason number four from your source:

4. Fruitfulness
God’s first command in Scripture is this: “… Be fruitful [bear fruit], and multiply [increase], and replenish [fill] the earth …” (Genesis 1:28).

The very nature and character of God is to multiply life, whereas the nature and character of Satan is to multiply death.

The source that you said does not include reproduction as a purpose of marriage clearly states that reproduction is a purpose of marriage.

The two lengthy quotes you provided at the end of this section are also from the Huffington Post article that references the unreliable Williams Institute study that was refuted by your own Wikipedia citation. Since all of your citations here are based on an incorrect assertion and a faulty study, I think it is appropriate to dismiss them as invalid.

"Conclusion 3: Love is the primary purpose of Marriage and not procreation."
I must I admit, I am disappointed that my opponent has presented a number of religious arguments after demanding that I cannot use them. I believe that is poor conduct, especially given your statement, "First, you agreed not to use reasons such as 'Jesus said so' or 'Gay people should die' by reading the description. Thus if you use any of these two reasons, the judges around may take off conduct points for you."

The opening line of your Huffington Post articles states, "If you listen to contemporary conservative Christians who are opposed to gay marriage, you might get the idea that Christianity teaches that the only legitimate purpose for sex is procreation and that marriage exists to sanction sex."
The author of the article continues to disparage conservative Christians while building a straw man argument to knock down with their own version of religion. This article was clearly meant to be a religious argument. Also, the opinions of a bunch of random internet atheist is not a reliable source, or even an argument.  I will remind you that we are not debating about whether Christianity allows for homosexual marriage. We are also not debating the reasons why homosexuals desire to marry. We are debating whether the government should allow them to marry and why.

You have given no justification in this debate to substantiate your only positive argument, which is that love is the main purpose of marriage and it doesn't hurt anyone. You have not defined what love is. You have not explained your reason for why love is essential for marriage. You have not explained how the government would enforce the necessity of love for the purpose of allowing marriage. I will refer back to the section of my argument in round 2 "Uncontested Arguments," all of which I do not believe have been refuted in any meaningful way. The key concept in all my arguments is that the government should not allow homosexuals to marry because it would provide little to no benefit to society.