Share this debate with your friends!

THE debate: THAT gay marriage should be legalized


This is a debate between me ("Nye") and myself pretending to be another (better) debater ("Jack McGonnel"), concerning gay marriage.

I am personally PRO on gay marriage but apparently have some conflicting arguments on it. Therefore I decide once and for all which side I will properly take in this debate concerning Gay Marriage.


Gay: Homosexuality

Marriage: The official legal status of reunion of two people

Legalized: Made officially available under the law

Debate layout

-R1: building cases

-R2: refuting each others cases

-R3: refuting the refutations of the cases (Counter-refutations)

-R4: More refutations, conclusion

-*Extra round 5* (11/15/14): (Because I was getting kind of annoyed at the tie. Time to make the clear winner really stand out)  Extra refutations, extra conclusion



I thank Jack McGonnell (my alter-ego) for getting the time to debate for me. I hope he'll enjoy it as will I! Let me start off this round simple.

Gays should have the same rights as men and women when it comes to marriage. Why should it be illegal for all people to have the same rights? Why should gays be unable to marry?
Gays will provide good taxes to the government after they marry. Why should we not allow people to show their love to each other AND the government? 
Also, a majority of people approve of gay marriage. (Graph shown below)


Majority rules. We'd be supporting the general public by allowing gay marriage.
There's simply no logical explanation for not legalizing gay marriage. It helps the government, and helps the people.


Jack here.

I thank my opponent, Nye (pseudonym) for instigating this debate, and I hope I'll have fun as well!

My case is quite a bit more complex. Here goes nothing. 


The burden of proof is on my opponent. He is affirming the resolution, That Gay Marriage Should be Legalized. He has to provide points enough to beat out my refutations as to why gay marriage should be legalized. He has only provided a singular point regarding majority ruling in this round; this should be noted in the judges' decision. I, however, will nevertheless build up a case against gay marriage to round as to make my opponent's burden more challenging. My opponent not only has to build up a strong case while surviving my rebuttals, he also has to rebut my arguments about the flaws within gay marriage. As a result of his burden, if the judges cannot make a clear decision, since my opponent is affirming the resolution, but his case has enough holes for you to say "I don't really know if gay marriage is good or bad..." the judges should vote me because Nye has the burden of proof.

 Before going onto the framework of my arguments, let me swat away my opponent's "majority rules" argument.

If majority truly rules, then why do the majority of countries NOT have gay marriage legalized? Hmmmm?


Now let's get into my arguments...



1. It's not normal

I mean, even in a Supreme court case ruling Baker v. Nelson it was decided that "The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis.” [1] Moreover, in a statement from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, marriage "was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose. No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman…” [10] It is because of such non-belief that many churches dislike the idea of gay marriage. It would be tough to convince so many churches to change their beliefs, especially since they now have to teach that gay people are equal to heterosexuals, which completely goes against the bible. [10] 

The traditional definition of "marriage" as defined by is screen-shot below.

As you can see the definition is ""Marriage (noun): the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife". This has been tradition for thousands of years. Why should we go against the long tradition? It would be disrespectful and unforeseen.

Even if you go with science here for the morality argument, gay marriage is still immoral. The purpose of evolution is to reproduce in order to become the survival of the fittest. With gay marriage, we can't reproduce and fulfill our natural purpose to reproduce and encourage evolution. Not only so, there is no evidence of the gay gene. There is no gay gene, gayness isn't natural.

2. Other weird marriages

It could give potential bestial, polygamous, or even incestuous relationships to the right of marriage. In April 2013, Slatepublished a plea for legal polygamy stating: "Just like heterosexual marriage is no better or worse than homosexual marriage, marriage between two consenting adults is not inherently more or less 'correct' than marriage among three (or four, or six) consenting adults." [2] Furthremore, some senior counsel named Glen Lavy said in a May 21, 2008 Los Angeles Times Op-Ed, "The movement for polygamy and polyamory is poised to use the successes of same-sex couples as a springboard for further de-institutionalizing marriage." [3]

3. People believe gay is wrong, why force them to pay taxes to support gay people?

Gay marriage gives gay couples many marriage benefits which are mostly paid by the tax the government recieves. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the federal government extending employment benefits to same-sex domestic partners of certain federal employees (making no mention of additional costs such as inheritance taxes or Social Security) would cost up to $596 million in mandatory spending and $302 million in discretionary spending in just 9 years. [4]

4. Gay parents can't take care of their children

Children are deprived of the good advice and emotional security without a mother. An Apr. 2001 study published in American Sociological Review suggesed that children with gay or lesbian parents are more likely to engage in homosexual behavior. [5] In addition, girls who don't have the help of their fathers are reportedly at higher risk for as well as early sexual activity. [6] Not only that, in the book Growing up in a Lesbian Family: Effects on Child Development by Fiona Tasker and Susan Golombok, it was observed that compared to 0% of sampled young adults raised by heterosexual mothers, 25% of sampled young adults raised by lesbian mothers had engaged in a homoerotic relationship. [7] 

Another link proves that Gay families aren't very happy. It was from the National Family Structure Study (NFSS) and they surveyed about 3,000 young adults. The statistics were quite shocking:

[3 graphs source:]

5. It's destroying normal marriage as we know it

A few examples are Sweden, Denmark, and Norway, which all legalized marriage in the 1990's. According to a report by Stanley Kurtz, from 1990 to 2000, Norway's birthrate from people whom were not married to each other went from 39% to 50% and Sweden's from 47% to 55%. Unmarried parenthood in Denmark rose 25% during the 1990s, and almost 60% of first born Danish children have unmarried parents. As Kurtz states himself, "Marriage is slowly dying in Scandinavia." [8]

6. Shifting normal "goal" for marriage

Marriage is supposed to mean about producing and raising child. But if gay people marry they can't produce children and only encourage to change the purpose of marriage to the other purpose of purely "getting it on" for fun. [9] 

7. Civil Unions are better. Seriously. They give the same benefits of marriage. And people are liking it much better than gay marriage...

[from 11]

[from 12]

[from 13]

[from 16]

That's not it though. Take a break here if you need to. Here I go with the toughest argument against gay marriage, the hardest one to refute...














"You're going to hate this..." --The Mona Lisa



What did I tell you? After reading all of that junk, I have a back-up argument! >:3

Which means...even if my opponent wins EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT ABOVE....



On the other hand I won't lose if I lose this argument.

Let's start off with a bunch of graphs shall we?




Oh snap! That's right my friends. Marriage rates are going down. They're practically reaching zero. Nothing. Nada. And why is that? Well, people don't like marriage. People hardly get along as couples nowadays, and the meaning of marriage has changed over time, as well as the gender roles. I'll (try to) paraphrase the reasons from here, and support them with logic (if it's not paraphrased, it's still not plagiarized, because I gave a source) :

1. Marriage was first made for women to serve men--a patriarchal structure. Many old documentaries show that, women were expected to do everything and basically be modeled by God for men. "In the Renaissance times a Renaissance Woman was supposed to marry well, be loyal to her husband and give birth to boys." states.

But nowadays women are gaining more jobs--they are becoming more able, and matching up to men's job within these gains of jobs. For example, women are earning, on average, more and more money as a result of their skills and abilities.

Women are also gaining more jobs in areas where men used to dominate.

Not only so, long ago women were expected to stay home and do house work, as well as care for children. But now? 

It is apparent that men are becoming the ones working at home and women less and less. Women are gaining more and more rights, they are becoming more of a equal partner to men rather than a slave or a servant. That is why there are more and more divorces, and fewer and fewer marriages.

Marriage rates are approaching zero percent.

Today, the old concept of marriage is becoming increasingly outdated, as more women can work after marriage and many men become the care-takers. Thus we see in history, as women gain more rights, they change the definition of "marriage" and show how marriage is outdated.


2. Marriage was originally religious. But today, even though marriages are conducted in churches (evidence that show it WAS religious), mostly our culture normally don't take marriage in a religious concept. (They may, however, consider religious ideals in the practice, but marriage isn't really religious, even if religion may effect the couple's decision)

3. Marriage by definition have accessibility, rights, privileges and responsibilities defined by the state. Yet what marriage means to those involved differs and committed non-married partners do not have the same recognition or rights. This is very unfair; all people should be equal and have the same rights, regardless of being married or not.

4. Sex outside of marriage is more and more openly accepted—marriage is no longer a prerequisite to sanctioned physical relationships between consenting adults.

5. There is an increase in cohabitation outside of marriage. Cohabitation does not necessarily lead to marriage, but rather could lead to serial monogamy or lifelong partnerships and families without marriage. 

6. People have the will to decide whether or not to reproduce, and some people actually don't want to. Unplanned pregnancies do not necessarily lead to marriage or adoption, but can also lead to co-parenting by parents who cohabit or are not together.

7. Financial independence is increasingly expected from and by both genders, even after marriage and children. Many women have already established their careers before marriage and have both personal and practical reasons for maintaining these careers even after the birth of any children. Further, many couples can no longer afford to raise children on one salary--and with more and more divorces, both parties must be able to earn adequate income in order to establish and support a second household following a split. 

8. Life spans are increasing...It may be increasingly unrealistic to expect commitment “until death” when we are living to age 100 and changing hometowns and careers multiple times over our lifetimes. 


If even straights should not have rights to marriage, there's no reason gay marriage should have rights to marriage.

Remember, I sourced a website, I didn't claim any of it was my own (even though I did paraphrase some parts). I made no mistakes of plagiarism, and my arguments are greatly supported by logic. 


Oops, I tricked you. That wasn't my final argument. :P 

Here we go, the true final argument! I promise; you can scroll down past this argument if you don't believe me. 

9. Traditional Marriage is more important than gay marriage

Now, I know I technically contradicted myself, as I had previously showed traditional marriage out of date and basically, terrible. However, if I prove this argument, that mean gay marriage is even WORSE than a policy that isn't needed!! That only strengthens the policy for NOT legalizing gay marriage.

You see, gays do contribute to society, but they don't exactly BUILD society. They constitute it, but gay marriage doesn't really make the society more diverse or larger. Traditional marriage effects society to a basic degree; while gay marriage fails to do so. We shouldn't put gay marriage and traditional marriage as equals, they are different and gay marriage does not contribute to society as much as traditional marriages do. Therefore, even if minority have the same rights as the majority (which, they really don't), we still can't put their gay marriage rights to be equal to normal marriage rights. Thus the argument that "gay marriage rights should be legalized because gays deserve right to marriage too" is on a completely different basis than just marriage as a whole. The two types of marriages cannot be compared to each other.

And with that, I conclude my round. Onto you, pro.



[1] Bruce Peterson, JD, Majority Opinion, Baker v. Nelson,



[4] Amber G. Marcellino, et al., "Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate H.R. 2517",
[5] Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz, "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?," American Sociological Review
[6] Bruce J. Ellis, "Does Father Absence Place Daughters at Special Risk for Early Sexual Activity and Teenage Pregnancy?"

[7] Fiona Tasker, PhD, and Susan Golombok, PhD, Growing Up in a Lesbian Family: Effects of Child Development, 1997



[10] Joseph Card. Ratzinger, "Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons",

[11] First G.M. and C. U. poll, from []
[12] The gay marriage vs civil unions graph 2003, from []

[13] The pie graph, from []



[16] [source:]



 Sorry if my font is weird, it's hard to edit it here.

Let me rebut now.



Okay, I accept. I always like a good challenge.


To rebuild my case about majority rules, let me point out that the majority of countries actually DO support gay marriage. In most countries, it isn't legalized but it isn't illegal either. And why is this so? Because of the UDHR...

"Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status." Article 2, Universal Declaration of Human Rights

"All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination." Article 7, Universal Declaration of Human Rights

"Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution." Article 16 (1) , Universal Declaration of Human Rights

193 countries have signed the UDHR. And ultimately, it states that marriage is a legal right, and should be available to both men and women regardless of their sexual preference. Majority rules? Legal recognition? Either way, I've won this argument.

1. Gay isn't normal

My opponent is wrong.

First, let me point out that marriage licenses are needed for gay marriages. Thus, this means that gay marriage is a legal status, not religious. Religion should not be involved in this debate. But even so, EVEN IF religion was involved, my opponent's claims are wrong.

The churches can in fact be convinced to change. Statistics suggest that religious views are starting to develop towards supporting gay marriage rather than thinking of it as a sin or a terrible punishment. For example, the Roman Catholic Church largely supports gay marriage.

Younger us catholics more accepting of homosexuality
Furthermore, religions are growing to become more accepting of gay marriage. Even though some religions remain thinking that gay marriage is a sin, their thinking and points of view about gay marriage have changed, as a featured speaker from the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commision states, "we ... speak about the issue, largely because there was the sort of evangelical belligerence, often, in the last generation, that spoke, for instance, about the “gay agenda,” in which there was this picture, almost as though there is a group of super-villains in a lair, plotting somewhere the downfall of the family. That—I almost never hear that in evangelical churches anymore. Instead, issues of sexual morality are being addressed consistently across the board, recognizing that everyone in the congregation has gay and lesbian children or parents or neighbors or friends and that many of the people in our own congregations are same-sex attracted. That's changed quite a bit, as well as the understanding of—I almost never hear in evangelical churches anymore the sort of easy-conversionism, “reparative therapy” understanding of gay-to-straight, that sort of caricature. It's always more complex than that." This shows that, as time moves forward, even the religious people who used to hate gay marriage are now learning their point of view and learning to gradually accept gay marriage.
Looking at the source, I laughed. All you have to do is click the gray arrow and these definitions pop up:
"the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.

(in some jurisdictions) a formal union between partners of the same sex.

the state of being married"
You can see here at least in some cases the world has started to accept gays into the act of putting them together, recognized by law. It is not irregular nowadays. As for tradition, well, things change over time. There was no constitution "Traditionally", and the American colonies didn't live well without it--they even had to revolt. Some things have to change according to modern outbreaks, new technologies, and new morals.
As for evolution, this view is contradictory and illogical because as the world grows and develops, it becomes over-populated and the population is harder to feed and let them survive. Letting evolution keep on flowing would only halt evolution further, as people are nearing the natural limit all animals have imposed upon them by natural laws. Speaking of the "gay gene", there has actually been conducted studies that show a specific H-Y antigen can actually make one's children more likely to be homosexual. As notes from statistics, "In men, sexual orientation correlates with the number of older brothers, each additional older brother increasing the odds of homosexuality by approximately 33%." Then provides a massive research paper to back up the fact that antigens can in fact effect the homosexuality of a person and that there indeed is a "gay gene".

2. The slippery slope
What makes my opponent think that polygamy marriage is bad? Studies show that men who married multiple women were more successful. It makes sense logically too. Why not show your success through your ability to marry multiple women?
3. Paying taxes
My opponent completely ignores my statistics of the majority of the population supporting gay marriage. Why should we not have the majority express their good opinion of supporting gay marriage?
My opponent also ignores my argument concerning how gays pay taxes to the government, benefiting society as well.
4. Bad children?
My opponent must prove homosexual acts immoral before this argument can take effect. His argument is based merely upon the thought that "homoerotic sexual acts are immoral, therefore encouraging children to do these acts is bad", but he hasn't built up the basis for his actions to work. Contradictory to Jack's claims, gay parents actually get the kids to grow and "kids in gay households scored 6 percent higher in the marker for general health", as well as tending " to be a bit better behaved, scoring 3 percent higher than those in traditional households." Furthermore, as the study also shows, gays " are committed to one another—with scores that were 6 percent higher than those of the general population." [source:]
Not only so, as a psychologist who studies gay and lesbian parenting found out, "Gay parents 'tend to be more motivated, more committed than heterosexual parents on average, because they chose to be parents,'" as he says so himself. "Gays and lesbians rarely become parents by accident, compared with an almost 50 percent accidental pregnancy rate among heterosexuals". He notes. This furthers the gays' trustworthiness. When it comes to gay marriage, it really is commitment to love, not a accidental get-together one-time event. The same source also highlights the benefits of "the[se] kids may have the advantage of open-mindedness, tolerance and role models for equitable relationships, according to some research." Thus there is nothing to suggest that gay marriage is immoral. Not only so, gay marriage is more than moral and justified, probably even more moral than straight marriage!
5. Destroying Normal Marriages
So...? According to my studies, gay marriage promotes moral and well-being of society and our future children! My opponent's supposed "terrible event" is actually an improvement according to my arguments.
6. Purpose of getting children
Opponent claims that marriage's purpose is to obtain children. Yet, he offers no justification. As I mentioned before, the world is overpopulating. Getting more and more children may not be a good thing. The purpose of marriage may not be actually reproduction after all. My opponent's own source trying to counter marriage states itself, "Advances in assisted reproduction technology are another major factor in the increasing number of babies born to unmarried people. " Thus we see here, reproduction isn't necessarily the point in marriage. Gay people can marry and fulfill its purpose of love.
7. Civil unions:
Why do straights get to decide what gays want? Gays would rather marry than have civil unions! The Williams Institution finds that most gays prefer marriage to civil unions. [source: ] You have to respect their minority rights! 
 Should we force straight people to have civil unions if they want to put their status into legality? Obviously we don't.

"As I said, their god will judge the legitimacy of their marriage." Exactly. And the only way to test the legitimacy is to legalize the marriage. If God doesn't like them, then God can destroy them the way he likes to.

Here's some new points to justify how gays exactly help society and the government: (if I mentioned them before, sorry, just repeating to get these imprinted in your mind!)
Gays have to pay marriage taxes. They can benefit the economy and government with the health care investment and tax-collecting.
Furthermore, gays adopt children. There are over 101,000 kids waiting in the orphanages to be adopted. [source:]. Since gays are more likely to adopt than straights (because they can't create babies), with marriage we'll encourage them further to help the poor kids as well as pay up to the government. It is obvious that Gays not only offer benefits to the government, but also society in general. There is no reason why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. 
Now, as for normal marriage, I'm sorry to say this but all your efforts are for absolutely nothing. We aren't discussing normal marriage, we're talking about gay marriage. 

9. TM> HM
My opponent is incorrect. I've already shown how gays have to pay marriage taxes (other people have to pay taxes too to provide the gays after marriage), adopt children, and overall effect society MORE than traditional marriage, if not just as much.

As you can see merely religious and gay-attacking arguments aren't enough to defeat me case. Gays benefit in a real sense, have rights  and religious views concerning their marriages have changed over time. I rest my case.
Back to you Jack.

Con's Case

Jack here. Thanks to Nye for taking his time. I'm greatly enjoying the debate thus far!

1. Religious views

My opponent is correct that homosexual marriage does not involve religion into it. Just because religion hates gay marriage does not mean we should hate marriage. However, my big argument here is that if gay marriage marriage brings more harm than good compared to civil unions (or no marriage at all), then therefore gay marriage should not be legalized.

Thus I continue with my religion case to display the amount of hate from religion marriage brings (in contrast to civil unions).

The Roman Catholicism Church certainly does not accept homosexuality. Not only are homosexuals prohibited to marry [], the church also has an official statement in the doctrine that states that homosexual relations are sinful. []


*Challenging the Pew Research Center*:

The Pew Research Center is untrustworthy when it comes to Roman Catholicism. Only registered voters can vote on the website, hence the description "aggregate". It is more than likely than less than 1 percent of Catholics voted on that poll. Thus, it commits the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.


Homosexuality also inevitably remains a sin within the bible. As tells us,the bible condemns homosexuality as a sin using multiple passages as justification.... 

  • Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1
  • Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them."
  • 1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
  • Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

All of these are from that website. Since the majority of the world's population are Christian...



Thus it remains inevitable that most of the world would not and cannot support neither marry the same sex. The real solid evidence can be found here:

Thus we see a clear majority of religions NOT supporting same-sex marriage, and 2 churches supporting civil unions to marriage. Unfortunately, from religious views, gays cannot marry.


To address the so called "gay gene", merely having antigens affect homosexuality only shows a correlation from antigens to homosexuality, not genes and homosexuality. There is a clear difference. A study, contrary to my opponent's poor evidence and muddled claim, finds that homosexuality is learned rather than a gene.

My opponent, even if coming up with even more studies, could be wrong as well. My research above shows that "The handful of studies that purportedly add up to incontestable

“proof” that homosexuals are “born that way” are inconclusive at best and, as Dr. Rahman notes,“largely correlational in nature.”

Correlation does not mean something is causative.

The gay children are effected heavily by their environment, not by their genes. It is not part of their genes for them to become gay; gay children are not natural!


2. Slippery slope

While men can display their success, their children will be less successful. As logic and a study ( can justify, "Children are more likely to flourish, and to becomegood citizens and workers, if they get high levels of attention, affection and financial support from their fathers in a stable, two-parent family. Children from polygynous families are less likely to get such investments from their fathers, which may be why research suggests that children in polygynous families do worse educationally and psychologically than their peers in monogamous families." As you can see polygamy may not be such a good thing after all. Furthermore, the spouses won't be treated very well either.


"Polygyny is associated with higher rates of domestic violence, psychological distress, co-wife conflict, and greater control of women, according to research by the Brown University political scientist Rose McDermott." This can be backed up by the fact that most men are not capable of being loyal and attentive to so much women, and those that can will be overly stressed as well as having more conflict with his wives. Monogamy is much better and more acceptable.


 To stress this further, the final point from the article is a conclusion from a psychologist, "...that the two-parent family 'best ensures that men and women are treated with equal dignity and respect' and is most likely to engender a spirit of mutuality in the family". Thus, while gay marriage could possibly have a good basis, the slippery slope and encouragement of speaking out for immoral polygamy marriages is unstoppable. We must stop the slope before it begins for the greater good; gay marriage must not be legal.


3. Paying taxes

My opponent is correct in that the majority of people support gay marriage. But surely one must not go against one's religion to marry.

Also, why should we not have the majority (of countries) express their good opinion of NOT supporting gay marriage?


4. Better children/parents

Yet, the gay children can suffer more emotional and social problems than straights as expert say in a study. Not only so, the big problem with gay children is that "Gay teenagers not only face the normal physical and emotional stresses of adolescence ....but must also contend with developing their sexual identities in a potentially hostile environment." source: 


Thus it can be seen that it is only because of the extra problems that the parents become involved. Our straight parents and their children only have less interaction due to the problems posed by being gay within our modern environment.Just mere teens in general have many problems according to a psychology study. We really don't want to give adopted children a bad environment from their gay parents.


6. Purpose of getting children

What are you talking about? The world is not anywhere close to getting full. There is plenty of space available. A study shows that we could put everybody within Texas and still have everyone living a normal life there.

We just need to better manage our resources, and then our so-called "over-population" would no longer be a problem.


7. Civil Unions

While they may think civil unions preferable, it is apparent that when we talk about legal status, civil unions are recognized in more countries than marriage.


New points about adoption and tax rates:

Homosexuals can still do these things even without marriage. This point is irrelevant.


Back to discussing about marriage as a whole, my opponent doesn't address the fact that if he wins the argument about minority rights, then that means gays shouldn't have the rights straights shouldn't have. (In other words, if straights should not marry, then logically gays should not marry either)


9. TM> HM

My opponent misunderstood my position. Again, traditional marriage actually makes up society by reproduction. Even though gays can indirectly effect society, they don't really BUILD society.


My other rebuttals and arguments still stand. Note that, my opponent has constructed very few cases to support gay marriage. Back to you, Nye.

*round 3: counter-rebuttals*


Thanks again Jack.

First let me note that my argument concerning the support for the UDHR has been completely voided (ignored). Let the judges remember this when they start judging on the winner!


Now onto my arguments.

1. Religious views

First let me point out that all the bible's passages, and the churches' condemnations, are of homosexuality as a whole concept; not just homosexual marriage. If my opponent wants to win this argument, then he is going for NO MARRIAGE AT ALL, which is flimsy and only supported by his last argument of marriage being outdated.

So the Roman Catholicism church believes that homosexuality is a sin. It's merely one church.

This clearly goes against the separation of Church and State. People should have their minority rights everywhere, regardless of who they are. And religious churches does the exact opposite and challenges gay's rights. lists some very crucial rights the churches fail to give homosexuals:

  • Banning their participation in the church, thus depriving them of the comforts and spiritual fruits of the church.
  • Banning their participation in the sacrament of marriage, thus depriving them of the comforts and spiritual fruits of marriage.
  • Damaging the bonds between gays and their straight family members, thus weakening the comforts and spiritual fruits of family life for both gays and their families.
  • Using their position within society as spokespersons for God to proclaim that all homosexual relations are disdained by God, thus knowingly contributing to the cruel persecution of a minority population.

The site also notes the contradiction of God's justness. "Throughout, the New Testament insists upon fairness, equity, love, and the rejection of legalism over compassion." The site states. If God was really just, he would have given man the free choice to love both men and women as they wanted to. It is especially the passage below that stresses the importance of love in our lives.

"Let no debt remain outstanding, except the continuing debt to love one another, for whoever loves others has fulfilled the law. The commandments.... and whatever other command there may be, are summed up in this one command: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law — Romans 13:8-10"

Thus it must be concluded that in this sense of love, woman and men are equal, as are gays and straights. 


My opponent's passages are all from the Old Testament. New testament believers are much more rational nowadays. The same site mentioned above also states that followers of new testaments have to abandon the old testament... "The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God. —Hebrews 7:18-19", and for good reasons too-- "wearing mixed fabrics, eating pork, and seeding lawns with a variety of grasses would be forbidden", and furthermore, "if the parents of a new bride could not, upon her husband’s request, prove that she was a virgin, that bride would have to be stoned to death." Not only so, the day of Sabbath would turn to Saturday instead of Sunday. As we see here the Old Testament is wrong, and it cannot be trusted. In our modern day only the new testament has the authority to tell Christians what to do.


Even around the time that the New Testament was written, homosexuality was still considered moral, as “… the sexual penetration of male prostitutes or slaves by conventionally masculine elite men, who might purchase slaves expressly for that purpose, was not considered morally problematic.”  (just in case you forgot, I'm still talking about


Again, I stress this, when it comes to marriage, the only thing that matters is truly loving one another. Jesus has taught to love; that is irrefutable evidence. A sentence from a passage here justifies that love is the true purpose of God, if Christians really choose to believe in him:

"And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love." (13:13)

The old Bible also was very biased, as this site also notes "The Bible’s clobber passages were written about same-sex acts between heterosexual persons, and do not address the subject of homosexual acts between a committed gay couple, because the concept of a person being homosexual did not exist at the time the Bible was written."


Thus it can only be concluded; the bible is biased because of its lack of information. It is not the superior source above them all, and rational reason must come before emotions when it comes to talking about gay marriage.

Now that I've finally countered your big religious argument, the rest should be much, MUCH easier. 

My opponent offers a humongous passage and research on how homosexuality is natural. Yet he does not prove the crucial thing--is heterosexuality natural?? As far as I'm concerned, heterosexuality is learned as well. A passage with 35 pages, even longer than my opponent's study, proves that both homosexuality AND heterosexuality are learned. states, at the very end, "But did your genes make you homosexual or heterosexual? No, it seems you learned it over many years."

Opponent drops my definition argument and completely omits it from his rebuttal.

2. The slippery slope

Going back to your original argument, you try to say that people will try to obtain more and more marriage rights. But  nothing suggests that bestiality and incestuous support has gone up just because gay marriage has more support. As for polygamy, women will be aware of the risks. They can always divorce the violent or incapable man if they want to, and the possibility of polygamy provides more equality and rights, regardless of whether they are used or not. There are also other benefits of polygamy. gives us 10 reasons why polygamy is beneficial. I already mentioned the benefits for the man and the freedom as well as the rights. The site gives us another 8 good reasons to why polygamy is beneficial, but I will only list 6 here so as to not overwhelm my opponent:

-with multiple (not to mention satisfying) partners, he won't have to cheat on his wives.

- polygamy was practiced by great men of both the Bible and the Koran. Abraham had more than one wife. Jacob had more than one wife. David had more than one wife....God did not condemn or punish any of these men for practicing polygamy. In fact, the Koran puts it clearly – a man is allowed to have up to four wives. Those who think that polygamy is wrong because Adam had only one wife don’t understand that Adam had no choice. If God had placed several Eves into the Garden of Eden or somewhere near it, forget it, Adam would have taken them all as wives.

Even the Koran bible supports polygamy.

- polygamy helps to reduce the number of unmarried women in a society...

- polygamy helps men with leadership ability. ... for a man to control a home of three or four wives with different backgrounds and behavior, for example, is a great leadership responsibility. And if a man can successfully manage this, then he’s most likely to manage great institutions or people. If one can understand and deal with women easily and successfully, then he has great management and leadership skills.

Again, displaying success? Yep, he can greatly increase his success with women and possibly increase his real skills in life.

- polygamy teaches a man to learn how to be patient. ...Patience is a great virtue ...Most of us also know that women do all kinds of things that annoy, infuriate or frustrate men. As mentioned in the previous argument, women, generally speaking, are troublesome creatures. If a man who has two or three wives can learn to keep them in his life for years, in spite of their troublesome nature, then that man has obtained one of the greatest virtues of life. 

The man can also increase his patience (a virtue!) skills as a result of having multiple wives

-polygamy is good in that it proves that men have a humanitarian spirit in them – they want to help others... If this man can willingly, readily and ably provide food, clothing, shelter and other things for the four women and their children.... This is the humanitarian side of polygamy, and it is another reason why we should support it and encourage both men and women to welcome and promote it.

The man would have to help others more, becoming more humanitarian and helpful to society.

3. Majority agreement

I already explained this in argument one.

4. Better children/parents

So what if gay children have more problems than straight children? Poor children have more problems than rich children, does this mean poor people shouldn't be able to marry?

5. Destroying normal marriage

My opponent has conceded this argument.

6. Purpose of getting children

"We just need to better manage our resources, and then our so-called "over-population" would no longer be a problem."

Exactly, the problem is resource management. shows that with our amount of oil and gas supply dwindling down, "Production for the seven shale oil basins showed a well decline rate of 60% to 91% -- 43% to 64% of their estimated ultimate recovery -- over 3 years. For the seven shale gas basins, the average well decline was 74% to 82% over the three years." As the site notes. With even more people the resource would even be harder to manage, and even less people would receive their basic needs of food and water in order to survive.

7. Civil Unions

The big difference between marriage and civil unions or domestic partnership is the great advantages marriage has over civil unions and domestic partnerships:

  • Legal recognition of the relationship in other states
  • The ability to divorce in any state, regardless of where married
  • Tax benefits available to married couples only
  • Immigration benefits when petitioning for a non-citizen spouse
  • Federal benefits, such as social security, medical, and life insurance


As you can see marriage over other alternatives clearly offers major benefits, even over civil unions and domestic partnerships. My opponent's assumptions have no evidence back up and are completely off-the-wall compared to my real descriptions and benefits.


There is also the great benefit of adoption. "Around the world, there are an estimated 153 million orphans". [] There are many, MANY negative impacts of not having parents. "Children who are institutionalized at an early age often demonstrate delays in emotional, social, and physical development. Institutionalization places children at great risk for certain diseases. Institutional care may affect a child's ability to make smooth transitions from one developmental stage to another throughout his/her life. Children brought up in institutions may suffer from severe behavior and emotional problems, such as aggressive or antisocial behavior, have less knowledge and understanding of the world, and become adults with psychiatric impairments. Finally, children raised in institutions are at risk for learning problems-such as poor reading ability and have more difficulty with critical thinking, establishing vause-and-effect, and impulsivity." []

Homosexuals are more likely to adopt than straights, since they can't create children on their own. Thus, we can do two jobs with one policy--both give homosexuals their well-deserved human right, AND help adopt these children. It's a win-win situation!


Now, about marriage, I know it would take too much effort, taxes and cashes, going against religious groups and all, to NOT legalize marriage. In addition, this argument commits the Is-ought fallacy. [source:] Just because something is declining (with a biased source that leaps to conclusions very quickly, without EVEN COUNTING ANY OTHER COUNTRY THAN THE US), does not mean it should be illegal. For example, look at this map:


Only one country recognizes pineapple lumps. Does this mean that all around the world, pineapple lumps should be illegal? Of course not. Pineapple lumps are delicious and awesome.

That's why we don't make marriage illegal just because it seems to be declining.


My new points:

You are correct about these facts not really contributing to why gay marriage should be legalized. On the other hand, this argument DOES contribute to why gay marriage shouldn't be prohibited. You see, I am trying to prove that gays are moral in this argument, and that they contribute to society. If gays do more benefit than harm, then you first argument collapses.

9. TM> HM

Once again my opponent hangs onto his little string of argument "builds society". Gays can build society too. They help adopt children in need and foster them in a good environment to let them BECOME PART OF SOCIETY. Homosexuals build society too, just in different ways than straights do.

With so much collapsing arguments, Jack is like a fish out of water. He needs to build up better arguments next round to think of beating me.


Jack here.


1. Religious views

To address my opponent's point about the overall condemnation of homosexuality, his analysis is correct. However, two facts must be noted with either outcome:

-One, if he pushes over "no marriage" I STILL HAVE civil unions to lean back onto--which I remind my opponent, is different from marriage and thus leaps over the outdated-marriage argument, and has more support, whether from religious churches or from the people in general.

-Two, even if he manages to completely magically obliterate my case of civil unions, he still has to refute the outdated-marriage concept, AND these biblical passages that show how much hate legalizing homosexual marriage would bring.

Thank you for reading. Now, onto my real arguments...

My opponent contradicts himself here in the church separated from state policy. He is indeed correct, church is church and state is state. But he misinterprets, thinking that church will over-spread its influence out of the church. The church's law will have no effect except over religious people who choose to believe in that church. If gays need to marry, then they'll have to contradict their religious beliefs in order to sacrifice enough for their marriage. That is why even if the state forces law to do one thing, the church's policies still stand alone. But why force gays to give up either their love or their marriage? We can just make gay marriage illegal, and gays can still love each other even without marriage. There's barely any difference between marriage and no marriage.

As for love, my opponent counters himself. Since he says that the Bible was created in a time without homosexuality, it can only be supposed that these passages only speak of heterosexual love being supported ("love, love, love"), not all types of love. 

My opponent tries proving that heterosexuality is learned, not natural, but Biblical evidence clearly counters this. 

So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it" from


"Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh"



And here's the killer passage...

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God"



As you can see homosexuality is very clearly condemned in the Bible, and heterosexuality is natural, God gives it to people, people who are gay go against God's wishes.


Now to talk about church versus state; the church has rights to deny gays these rights. If an atheist went to the church and shouted "God is terrible, god does not exist!" The church has a right to kick him out and deny him the rights usual Christians have. Similarly, the church can deny gays marriage rights because unfortunately, gay marriage or gay sexual acts go against the Bible (God's word).

2. Slippery slope

You practically provided an entire opening-argument worth of polygamy supporting arguments!










Yes. You see, my opponent has enclosed the last, very important reason to why polygamy should be legalized...






(drum roll please)







"Finally, polygamy, like prostitution, is an age-old normal human practice." (

Polygamy is good as my opponent has proven. It is also a traditional, trustworthy method. Why chose the new method of gay marriage? Go for traditional. Go for polygamy. But gay marriage? Nay, it is too new, it is untrustworthy, it is not good. Instead of sacrificing something that is immoral and bad for something good, we can just jump straight to polygamy and ignore the calls for gay marriage. My opponent's tries at supporting polygamy is only fluff and hinders his case of gay marriage. Remember, this is a debate concerning gay marriage, NOT polygamy marriage. Thus his whole resolution concerning reasons of legalizing polygamy collapses utterly.


Skipping over argument 3 because it is now basically completely based upon argument number one.


4. Better children/parents

Based on utilitarianism, yes, my opponent's case is the best way possible. The only way to have children grow up well is to put them into a good environment. The parents can sacrifice their love for the future generation.


6. Getting children

But children can still grow up to be inventors, or at least contributors to society and produce more resources, or come up with a smart solution!


7. Civil unions

Legal Recognition 
This argument does not make much sense. More countries have legalized civil unions than gay marriages. There is definitely more legal recognition from having a civil union than a marriage. This proves civil unions to be better than gay marriage.
Ability to Divorce 
The argument fails because people in civil unions can divorce too. 

Tax Benefits 
My opponent misses the other side of the story. Married couples also have to pay a large amount more in legal fees than people receiving civil unions. It more than offsets the balance. This is a reform we can look towards to in civil unions. There are some countries outside of the US that also give equal legal status to unions and marriages. 

 The institution of Marriage visas with civil unions are rare, because that means two people are married under a civil union with dual nationality. There might be 10 recorded cases of this in history, so this argument really lacks importance. This policy really is not that helpful to my opponent's case at all.

Federal Benefits 
These benefits only apply to the United States--and we are talking about the world. There are no benefits only available to married couples when we talk about them. Social security provides equal benefits to all citizens by US law, and health insurance is ran by corporations, not influenced by the institution of marriage. 

Again, how much must I stress this, religious people hates homosexual marriage. There are a multitude of passages, whether in the old or new, that condemn this action. Even if my opponent's claims about the New Testaments are correct, some people still chose to believe in the old testament. 


As for marriage, wouldn't legalizing gay marriage cost just as much, and go against religious groups too? I've already proved the "go against religious groups" part of the argument. Now, as for the adoption argument, this is not a unique benefit. A news site says... "The president of Malta, George Abela... refus[ed] to sign a bill that would create homosexual civil unions and allow same-sex partners to jointly adopt children in the tiny Mediterranean country." [source:] We're not entirely too sure why he refused, maybe he didn't like gays as a whole, regardless of marriage or not, but that's not the point. The point here is that there CAN be laws passed to allow gays to both have legal recognition and lots of civil rights, while still adopting children and spreading their awesome benefits.


For this round I have survived. I have provided excellent, strong rebuttals and I am not that "fish out of water" as my opponent exaggerates. Back to you for the final round, Nye.

* Round 4: rebuttals and conclusion*



Let me rebut my opponent's cases and obliterate them completely this round. 

1. Religious views

Here my opponent sticks to the policy of "no marriage". He has chosen wrongly. Marriage gives many benefits that merely "loving each other" cannot give. Here is the full list of all the benefits from marriage given to straights that, will be given to gays as well:

Tax Benefits

  • Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
  • Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.

Estate Planning Benefits

  • Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
  • Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
  • Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
  • Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse's behalf.

Government Benefits

  • Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
  • Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
  • Receiving public assistance benefits.

Employment Benefits

  • Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
  • Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
  • Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
  • Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse's close relatives dies.

Medical Benefits

  • Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
  • Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

Death Benefits

  • Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
  • Making burial or other final arrangements.

Family Benefits

  • Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
  • Applying for joint foster care rights.
  • Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
  • Receiving spousal or child supportchild custody, and visitation if you divorce.

Housing Benefits

  • Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
  • Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.

Consumer Benefits

  • Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
  • Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
  • Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.

Other Legal Benefits and Protections

  • Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
  • Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
  • Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can't force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
  • Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
  • Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
  • Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.



2. Slippery slope

My opponent's entire argument is an appeal to authority. Just because something is old does not mean it is good. Correlation does not show causation.

Not to mention that, my opponent's case for banning marriage counters himself and proves that something old is not necessarily good. The times have changed. Maybe homosexual marriage, which originally was condemned by the Bible, has changed nowadays.


4. Better parents/children

My opponent mentions utilitarianism, but this only defeats his case. Utilitarianism only takes the most beneficial plan, on balance, to be the most moral plan. Love can be infinite, it bonds for eternity. On the other hand poorness is only a status, only temporary and worth a finite amount. Infinite benefits versus finite benefits? I think it's pretty obvious which plan is more moral under the case of utilitarianism.


6. Getting children

We should focus on our current children. There are starving children in Africa, as I mentioned before, many children lack parenting and counseling and need to be adopted. Instead of creating more starving children, we should work on our current children to develop them.


7. Civil Unions...

Ability to Divorce

This would be the case in civil unions as well. The argument lacks relevance.

The key words are, "in any state". You wouldn't want to drive from California, your new home, to the old place you were married way up in Massachusets, no?

Tax Benefits
Either way, it's a win-win situation. Gays pay less in marriage than unions, good for them. They have to pay more, government gets more money.

So what if it has only helped few people so far? It has the potential to help far more people than civil unions can.
9. TM> HM
Opponent has dropped this point.


-My opponent has dropped many, many arguments. He has dropped the civil union argument, he has dropped the destroying normal marriage argument, the definition of "marriage", and committed a myriad of fallacies that destroyed his arguments over the course of this debate. My argument concerning the support for the UDHR has been completely voided (ignored). I have won. Let the floor slide with me.

Good debate Jack. I hope to debate with you again! :D


 Jack here for the final round.

1. Religious views

My opponent still has ignored my counter-rebuttal to his religious argument. This is very crucial and contributes to a big body of the debate. It cannot simply be ignored. Under religion, homosexuals simply cannot gain these rights because the Bible condemns homosexuality, and the church has authority in its territory, regarding its beliefs. God's word is final. The church cannot make gay marriage legal.

2. Slippery slope

Even though something old might not be good, that doesn't mean something old is not good. My opponent has made zero cases that suggest old things aren't good; in fact, he has suggested the opposite especially in his stressing within the benefits of polygamy marriage.


4. Better parents/children

Yet some people are so poor they might leave their children orphans under such economic pressure of marriage. Momentary love turns to hatred; the children will disprove of their parents' marrying and in their hate, attack the surviving parent, or the society around them. They will become depressed and helpless. You clearly see here utilitarianism working to its maximum; even though three people will gain love, it will lead to two lives lost as well as a depressed orphan with a tragic life. My argument still stands. 


6. Getting children 

My opponent has already conceded we are terrible at resource management, and my point about gay couples' children having more problems than straights' children still remains strong. We should just have a policy in which we have straight people adopt more children to solve my opponent's "starving children" problem instead of going for disrespecting traditional definitions of marriage.


7. Civil unions

Opponent dropped this crucial argument.


-Opponent has dropped the all-important marriage-ban argument, which alone could destroy his whole case. 



Although I dropped many arguments, they were all my building contentions. I have dropped none of my opponent's contentions and instead constructed them well against him. His points only destroy his case. According to the burden of proof, I feel that my opponent has largely failed to fulfill his burden. He has spent a great amount of time rebutting my arguments but only sufficiently constructing one or two arguments, that were completely rebutted by me. I rebutted and proved that civil unions are disrespectful religiously and bring harmful hate. These points, the core of the premise, have been dropped. Therefore they should be considered affirmed, and I have a clear advantage with a winning argument on the opposing side, even though I don't have the burden of proof. Keep in mind that at the last round, possibly the most crucial round, my opponent dropped my civil unions argument.


I have enjoyed this debate greatly, and I thank Nye for debating this topic with me. It was extremely tricky to play devil's advocate, however, I have won for reasons stated above.



*Round 5: extra refutations, extra conclusion*


Due to a lack of a clear winner after Jack's editing of his rounds, Jack and I agreed to have an extra round so we can both have extra refutations, rebuilding of cases, and a true conclusion to decide once and for all who is the clear winner.

1. Religion vs State

And why does the church have authority over the fact that all men should have equal rights?

2. Slippery slope
And even if old things are good, that doesn't mean anything that is not old is not good.

4. Better parents/children

While extremely poor parents may lead to my opponent's case, it is far too exaggerated compared to homosexual marriage's balance and trade-off. More problems? Better, more caring parents.


6. Getting children

My opponent's assumption is quite fallacious. Besides, forcing straights to adopt children also puts quite a burden upon the straight parents, who may already have their own children. 

7. Civil unions

Legal Recognition
If majority rules didn't work all the time, then my opponent's own point refutes his own. In addition, the countries cannot represent the gays. They may also have different policies that put other things, such as education or military, as priority before gay marriage. I am certain they will reach it sooner or later, gay marriage does have no real physical harm to anyone.

As for tax benefits, I'm not sure what my opponent is talking about. He cites nothing to suggest that gays are abused, so his assertion is quite fallacious.

Speaking of those passages that so called "condemn homosexuality", my opponent fails to cite these as well. In contrast, I proved that the Bible does in fact support love, and does not have apparent passages that go against homosexuality. Not only so, even if the bible does condemn homosexuality as my opponent proposed, I've shown that the Church should not have the authority over state laws. It is immoral for them to not give minority rights. The church can only reject their rights to atheists and agnostics who chose to not believe in the church; the church cannot reject religious homosexuals just because they are homosexual. 

In conclusion, I've won this debate, because gay marriage is awesome, and everyone would obtain equality through gay marriage, the best possible option, NOT civil unions, and my opponent has mere assertions without true sources to back his arguments up. 


I thank Jack for agreeing to have a final round with me. It really allowed me to point out his final fallacies and completely destroy his case while building mine up strong. I believe I have won, with successful rebuttals of many crucial parts of my opponent's rebuttals.


The church has these rights because it is private property.

Now back to the civil unions case.

Legal Recognition 

There are no standing points besides "the majority of homosexuals want it", which wasn't even reliable. Civil unions are recognized in more countries than marriage. This non-refuted point remains standing. 

Tax Benefits
It is a question of whether less taxes are a good thing or a bad thing. But as I already proved, homosexuals grow up in tougher environment, and thus it would only be moral to have less taxes upon them. Thus, civil unions wins this argument.

Homosexuals are Moral
This was never contested. I agree that Jesus said people should love each other, but three other sources in the bible say homosexuals should not engage in relations, as humanity should reproduce. Jesus didn't contradict the bible-- It is fully possible to love another man without an intimate relationship.

Why I Won the Debate
  • My opponent dropped many arguments, including (practically) equal benefits and the harms from religion. He dropped my evidence while still affirming arguments, and this isn't convincing at all. This should be heavily noted in the judges' decisions.

  • Nye claims that civil unions is worse than marriage, but there hasn't been a single argument suggesting so. On the other hand, I contended civil unions are less harmful, and that they come with the same benefits of gay marriage. My opponent completely failed to successfully refute these arguments, and instead choosing to assert without rebuttal, shows that the BOP hasn't been fulfilled. (And keep in mind that my opponent has the Burden as agreed upon in round 2)

  • The big argument from my opponent was that the majority of people want marriage, gays have a right to love each other, and dedicate their love to god. I proved that homosexuals can love each other in a civil union, or even without a civil unions. Homosexuals can dedicate their love to god while at the same time avoid the sins of material namesake. I also proved majority opinion isn't something to affirm cases, as the majority of people may be wrong or uneducated on the truth. If majority rules worked in all cases, then debating wouldn't exist.


4. Better parents/children

And when you combine poor and being gay...well, that's the bomb.


6. Adoption

Still, we can have straights that don't have children be forced to adopt children.

And as noted before--an irrefuted argument--gays don't need marriage to adopt children.



Nye has dropped many important arguments, while I completely and utterly destroyed his attempts at fulling his burden. His onus is now largely voided by me, and I have overtaken his entire case. I have won.

*debate end*

Who do you think won? Vote in the poll within the section "who won?" above in the menu to select your winner.