EDEB8 - Ultimate Online Debating
About Us   Debate    Judge   Forum

Gay marriage should be illegal

0 points
18 points
Alok KumarAlok Kumar (PRO)
First of all i will like to declare that this is my first time Debating. Also, I will like to thank 'EDEB8' to set up a platform of such class, which gives equal chances to both pro and con.

Judges, kindly be gentle with me and don't hesitate to give your feedbacks.

Starting with my debate, i will like to mention, that this topic is very sensitive. Homosexuality is treated as disease.Hitler, as we all know him, was cruel as hell. He thought of homosexuality as a true sign of impotency, and hence they were also made to go through the holocast.Our society has no respect for gays aor lesbians.These words are used as curses nowdays.Although on social media people may support gay marriages or organise a candle march for them, they still want to have distance from this culture. And why not? Isn't this weird when a guy wants to spend all of his life with another guy?

    In 1973, the weight of empirical data, coupled with changing social norms and the development of a politically active gay community in the United States, led the Board of Directors of the American Psychiatric Association to remove homosexuality from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).Hence, I stand with my blow.Homosexuality is a mental disorder whicih should be cured before it plagues the whole civilization.

Should we celebrate gay marriages? My given data of course denies the even existence of this question. We cannot encourage a practise build upon mental dis order.

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-03-17 09:33:51
| Speak Round
TejreticsTejretics (CON)
My argument in this debate is primarily based on the idea that the government should legislate based on maximizing positive mental states and minimize negative ones. What do those mean? 

1. A positive mental state is one that we inherently value or desire. Pleasure and happiness are inherently valued by individuals. In fact, some philosophers hold that pleasure is the only thing with inherent value (1). We can't arbitrarily prescribe value to everything - value has to be prescriptive, i.e. should have a reason to maintain. Pleasure is the only cogent framework for establishing "value." 

2. A negative mental state is essentially something which is intrinsically bad or undesirable, such as suffering and sadness. The same justification as above counts. 

There's no suffering resulting from gay marriage - marriages only make people happy. Therefore, vote Con on the framework. 


I'd also like to make a case from discrimination, from my own account on Debate.org:

The government has to make logically justified decisions in cost-benefit analysis. As such, its judgement of people has to be based on the choices they make, and *not* based on their characteristics. Basing government decisions on characteristics is absurd. For instance, it is intellectually dishonest and absurd for the government to favor blue-eyed people alone, or only men. The reason patriarchy and racism are rejected are that it is intellectually dishonest and non-utilitarian, and is inherently unjust. The government making unjust decisions is unacceptable. Reject the resolution because arbitrarily basing policy on a person’s sexual orientation legitimizes further discrimination. Yep, et al. explain, “Heteronormativity, as the invisible center and the presumed bedrock of society, is the quintessential force creating, sustaining, and perpetuating the erasure, marginalization, disempowerment, and oppression of sexual others.” [2] That’s a little difficult to understand, so let me explain: the idea that heterosexuality is the norm sexual orientation encourages gender roles, that lead to marginalization and oppression of women, transgendered people, and homosexuals.

Making gay marriage illegal is an inherent acknowledgement of this discrimination. It would be a symbolic gesture accepting the idea that homosexual love is not equal and would reject it. This rejection causes psychological harm. A study by Wight, et al. shows that same-sex couples that are married have significantly less psychological harm than those that aren’t and attributes the cause to the recognition of them as an equal part of society. [3] Not recognizing same-sex marriage promotes stigmatization and expresses the idea that same-sex couples are fundamentally different. As such, it promotes people treating them with discrimination, and further promotes heteronormativity. All recognizing heteronormativity does is encouraging gender roles, since by differentiating heterosexual marriage, it *categorizes* male and female. Gender roles have led to oppression in many circumstances. The government acknowledging heteronormativity is harmful.


Pro argues that homosexuality is a mental disorder. But the thing is, it was removed from the list of mental disorders - per Pro's own source. As such, it isn't considered a mental disorder anymore, with more understanding of psychology. Furthermore, Pro doesn't link this to the resolution (re: how is this relevant?). The pleasure/pain framework outweighs. 

For all these reasons, I negate. 


1. http://www.iep.utm.edu/hedonism/ 
2. http://tinyurl.com/zd854ja
3. http://tinyurl.com/bc2pm4n

Return To Top | Posted:
2016-03-17 14:01:23
| Speak Round

View As PDF

Enjoyed this debate? Please share it!

You need to be logged in to be able to comment
Regardless, the government should be out of marriage and marriage licensing should be abolished. In this way the state can not make marriage a certain way so gays can marry and people can even marry more than one person. This way works best with religious freedom and the state should stay out of personal issues anyways.
Posted 2016-04-07 07:26:35

Go to "debate," and you'll find open ones. Or start a new one.
Posted 2016-03-27 13:16:54
How do you join any debate ? I am new here.
Posted 2016-03-27 09:21:31
How do you join any debate ? I am new here.
Posted 2016-03-27 09:21:18
Personally i believe that everyone should do whatever they please and no one should tell them how to live their life. If you dont want to marry someone of the same gender dont.... But why would you ever make someone who by nature is attracted to the same gender marry who u please. I dont understand why people even debate this. If someone gets gay married has absolutely no affect to their life whilst if you prevent them they will live in misery forever.
Posted 2016-03-20 20:16:18
@Alok Kumar

You have to click "debate," type an argument, and post it. Don't use the comments.
Posted 2016-03-17 03:17:48
Alok KumarAlok Kumar
Tejretica, sir iam new to this. Kindly guide me how and why to use this 'comment' option. Help will be deeply appreciated.
Posted 2016-03-16 14:51:40
Alok KumarAlok Kumar
There lies a universal truth that opposite gender attract each other.Well, this is a rule made by mother nature, and thus we are bound to follow it.Hence was ask ourselves a question.Is Gay marriage fair?.According to me, No.A big no. We operate according to the nature, which means that a male is supposed to develop feeling for a female and vice versa.Sadly, on this note,i would like to declare that 'gayness' maybe a mental disorder.
Posted 2016-03-16 14:25:37
Alok KumarAlok Kumar
There lies a universal truth that opposite gender attract each other.Well, this is a rule made by mother nature, and thus we are bound to follow it.Hence was ask ourselves a question.Is Gay marriage fair?.According to me, No.A big no. We operate according to the nature, which means that a male is supposed to develop feeling for a female and vice versa.Sadly, on this note,i would like to declare that 'gayness' maybe a mental disorder.
Posted 2016-03-16 14:24:49
Alok KumarAlok Kumar
There lies a universal truth that opposite gender attract each other.Well, this is a rule made by mother nature, and thus we are bound to follow it.Hence was ask ourselves a question.Is Gay marriage fair?.According to me, No.A big no. We operate according to the nature, which means that a male is supposed to develop feeling for a female and vice versa.Sadly, on this note,i would like to declare that 'gayness' maybe a mental disorder.
Posted 2016-03-16 14:24:42
The judging period on this debate is over

Previous Judgments

2016-04-05 14:13:44
BifurcationsJudge: Bifurcations
Win awarded to: Tejretics
Pro's main argument was that homosexuality is a mental disorder because it was once considered so. The problem is your own analysis says that this was changed with empirical data alongside public pressure and is therefore no longer considered a mental disorder. If you are going to stick with that argument (I suggest you should not) then you need to prove why you think it should still be considered a mental disorder given that science is generally in agreement that it is not.

I think what you set up is that there is not much public acceptance of gay or lesbian people but I am a bit confused by your analysis for this (they would hold handle marches but would stay away from the culture). I think it is far to say that homosexuality is not yet fully accepted by the public but when you go on to talk about homosexuality as a mental illness you state that changing social norms and public pressure were used to remove homosexuality from the list of mental illnesses. This leaves me confused in your speech about whether you can prove that homosexuality is not accepted by the majority of people.
You try and prove that people currently distancing themselves from homosexuality is the reason why same-sex marriage should be illegal by saying it is a mental illness however as I said this point is never proven and is undermined by your own analysis.

Con points this out at the end of their and does a good job setting up a framework by which all governmental policies should be judged: Happiness outcomes. I think writing that all marriages lead to happiness probably ignores the divorce rates so be careful with this type of framework because you may bet challenged on it. I think before you prove your happiness framework you can set up the option of marriage as a human right and flag that clearly. So you have room to add more complexities to your framing which deal with the divorce rates.
You then go on to provide good analysis on where discrimination of non heteronormative couples comes from, the harms of that and how that can be lessened by allowing them to marry which supports your framing nicely.

Overall it was unclear from Pro what the specific harms of allowing same-sex marriages would be given that the main justification was undermined and Con provided some excellent analysis on why governments should make policies and how to deal with discrimination therefore it is a win for Con.

Alok Kumar: I recognise this was your first debate on here and my first bit of advice would bent to give up on a debate even if you feel like you can't win. My second bit of advice would be to get more involved in the site there are lots of friendly people on here who can give you advice and even coaching.
Anyway back to the debate. I think what you need to do is a bit more research on what homosexuality is and the reasons that people might be opposed to the legalisation of gay marriage (Religion might be one of those reasons). Also from a debates point of view it is easier to set up the debate as "That Same-sex Marriage should be legalised" and then take the opposition. For your debate you have to prove why places like the UK and the US would be able to make it illegal after they have only just legalised it. With the debate I suggested you can use specific examples from countries which are yet to legalise it. In your posts be clear about what you are trying to prove at all points i.e. how does the thing you are writing help you win the debate. Use more sources if you want to help you illustrate your argument with examples. Well done for a first attempt on here and I hope you take up more debates.

Tejretics: Your analysis was good and the points you were making showed clearly large harms however on first read I was confused at some points about what you were trying to prove. I think this can be easily solved by using headlines and maybe a sentence at the start to outline what you want to discuss and why. Like I said above you can add in a few complexities to your framing to make it wrong enough to deal with an attack on marriage causing happiness. You had loads of character space left to really dive into the points you were making and elaborate on them mostly for my benefit because I enjoyed your material but again giving more detail at each stage can make it clearer what the aim of your analysis is.

Hope all that makes sense and I am happy to answer any questions.
4 users rated this judgement as constructive
2 comments on this judgement
Thanks for the RFD. I didn't really put much effort into this one, because -- on seeing my opponent's argument -- I thought that much was enough. I try to be as concise and simple as possible with my arguments.
Posted 2016-04-06 08:49:21
@Tejretics I guessed that but still consider it important initial feedback :)
Posted 2016-04-06 08:53:55
2016-04-05 18:14:14
sf_skier9Judge: sf_skier9
Win awarded to: Tejretics
Agreed with the previous judges remarks. The pro made a very weak case based on the fact that homosexuality used to be considered a mental disorder. The negative gave sufficient arguments to refute this and demonstrate that making gay marriage illegal would be discriminatory.
3 users rated this judgement as good
3 comments on this judgement
I rated this as "biased" because, while the reasoning was certainly sufficient, it piggybacked off of another RFD. Don't read other RFD's before you vote: a tip to all judges.
Posted 2016-04-06 08:50:11
is it really a biased decision given presumably all that would have to change for it to "piggy back" less is to remove the first sentence. Why do you consider it biased? (maybe a discussion on a forum thread for this?)
Posted 2016-04-06 08:56:42
@Bifurcations I agree that it isn't "biased" -- so I've removed the rating -- but I think judges should not read other RFD's at all before voting. Also, the vote is pretty generic in its analysis, but for a new user, it isn't bad.
Posted 2016-04-07 10:23:35
2016-04-06 14:57:20
JurisprudenceJudge: Jurisprudence
Win awarded to: Tejretics
An easy win here for tejretics. One side argued with reason and logic, the other did not.
4 users rated this judgement as biased
8 comments on this judgement
I'd suggest reconsidering your reasoning, because you didn't reference any arguments made in the debate.
Posted 2016-04-06 15:04:46
@Tejretics easy there, they are both new to the site and 1 point votes are legit.
Posted 2016-04-06 15:11:24
@Bifurcations The fact that they are *legitimate* doesn't mean they are good. This is, in fact, the main reason I'm not on Edeb8 much at all. On DDO, such votes are removed, and it guarantees some level of vote quality.
Posted 2016-04-07 10:22:02
@Tejretics I mean sure more reasoning is a good thing but I think this version is much better than removing votes because people can decide how much of an influence they want to have in the debate. One point rather than three or four means there is limited influence on the call but still encourages new judges to get involved.
I would encourage you to reframe the first comment you made to a question for more feedback rather than just saying "reconsider your reasoning".
Posted 2016-04-07 14:04:47
@Bifurcations Well, let's agree to disagree - I framed it as a mere suggestion, and nothing more; it's up to the judge in question to follow it. I'd like to note that *long* RFD's aren't necessarily good ones, so I think the edeb8 system fails there as well.
Posted 2016-04-08 12:35:48
@Bifurcations I'll also note that voting is a *service,* not a right or a privilege. So "encouraging new judges to get involved" is only good insofar as their reasoning is strong.
Posted 2016-04-08 12:36:51
@Tejretics I'd welcome more discussion about judging systems. Forum would probably be the appropriate place for that. There is a mandatory RFD option but I guess it's fair not everyone shares my judging philosophy.
Posted 2016-04-08 14:40:39
@admin @Tejretics I would love to have a conversation about this on the forum :)

I will start a discussion thread.
Posted 2016-04-08 21:45:14
2016-04-08 14:33:19
RoseJudge: Rose
Win awarded to: Tejretics
You bring up excellent points, and i do believe that if people like the same sex that it should be their right to be with them.
3 users rated this judgement as a vote bomb
1 user rated this judgement as biased
1 comment on this judgement
I'd appreciate if you could reconsider your RFD, because what you "do believe" shouldn't affect the decision as to who *won.*
Posted 2016-04-09 13:51:12
2016-04-09 17:33:20
Ab_MJudge: Ab_M
Win awarded to: Tejretics
Pro argued that homosexuality is a mental disorder because it was removed from the mental disorder list. This evidence did not support this conclusion. This was Pro's only argument, so Pro did not prove the resolution true. Con provided many arguments against the resolution, which were all dropped by Pro.

Pro, I would have liked to see some arguments about how homosexuality can be harmful for society in the long run, how it messes up family roles, how children need a father AND a mother, etc...

Con, I really liked your reasoning! Your framework was sound and it made a lot of sense. The equality argument was good, but the comparison of marriage laws to racist and sexist policies is not a sound one. If gay marriage was not recognized as marriage, everyone would have equality before the law: Everyone can marry, no one can marry a member of their own sex. There is no discrimination here. Racist and sexist policies that used to exist were inherently discriminant and did not provide everyone with equality before the law: Africans could be held as slaves, but whites could not. Men could vote, but women could not. Instead of arguing that this law is discriminating against gays, say that it doesn't provide benefits for certain actions that warrant benefits. If a lesbian couple decides to live a married life, and one of them already has a child that they raise together, why shouldn't they be allowed to adopt? Doesn't the action of raising a child warrant parental benefits? That would be a stronger argument.
1 user rated this judgement as exceptional
0 comments on this judgement
2016-04-11 08:43:01
gavstone21Judge: gavstone21
Win awarded to: Tejretics
Alok kumar used the argument that homosexuality is a mental disorder. According to science homosexuality is no longer a mental disorder. Like what Bifurcations said if you are going to stick with that argument you need to argue why it should be labeled a mental disorder. Tejretics made the argument that making gay marriage illegal is a form of discrimination and backed his answer with very good supporting details based on his valid definition of discrimination.
1 user rated this judgement as good
0 comments on this judgement
2016-04-12 21:35:13
Bi0HazardJudge: Bi0Hazard    TOP JUDGE
Win awarded to: Tejretics
PRO: Gay marriage should be illegal because it is a mental disorder and it should not plague society.
CON: Gay marriage should be legal because the government should legislate based on maximizing positive mental states and Gay marriage is a positive mental state, and gay marriage being illegal is discrimination.
CON rebuts PRO argument by saying homosexuality is not considered a mental disorder anymore.
It is a win for the CON side.

Alok Kumar, you had the potential to do better. You just used an invalid argument. I suggest you should have researched the topic more and you could have used more convincing arguments.
Tejretics, your argument about the discrimination is invalid, since homosexuals would still have equality with others under the law and homosexuals would actually be discriminating against traditional marriage.
It would be better if you would have explained your case more, but as I see it, you didn't need to because of your opponents case.
6 comments on this judgement
1) Yeah, I mostly didn't explain stuff much since my opponent forfeited and so on.

2) "Discrimination" = arbitrary differentiation. Not allowing homosexuals to marry and allowing heterosexuals to marry *is* differentiation. There's no proper rationale for doing so, so it's "arbitrary." Also, "discriminating against traditional marriage" is incoherent -- because it does *nothing* to opposite-sex marriage. Legalizing same-sex marriage poses no harm whatsoever to opposite-sex couples.
Posted 2016-04-13 13:55:15
Just to explain what I mean, homosexuality would be discrimination to the idea of marriage being between one man and one woman only(Traditional marriage). Not trying to point out if this is wrong altogether just a different approach to this issue.
Posted 2017-03-14 19:49:23
@Bi0Hazard What does that mean? You are not "discriminating" against it because you are not "differentiating" it with something else and giving preferential treatment to another. I mean, in a sense you are, but there's no REAL WORLD effect of it.
Posted 2017-03-30 06:48:41
Wow, this is strange, I didn't post that 16 days ago, strange thing.
Of course you are making a distinction against traditional marriage, you are essentially changing marriage, don't tell me that isn't discrimination, because it surely is.
" I mean, in a sense you are, but there's no REAL WORLD effect of it."
Sure there is, gay marriage and homosexual has its impact on society.
Posted 2017-03-31 04:40:35
@Bi0Hazard What do you think "discrimination" means? Discrimination is "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex." I don't see how same-sex marriage "unjustly" or "prejudicially" treats people. Traditional marriage [by which I assume you mean opposite sex marriage] is not a person, nor can it be treated "unjustly." Also how does same-sex marriage affect opposite sex marriage? Unless by "traditional marriage" you mean "marriage between only a man and a woman, excluding gay folks," which is literally the DEFINITION of discrimination.
Posted 2017-04-10 16:46:44
Traditional marriage doesn't need to be a person, it is a societal institution.
Discrimination- treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which the person or thing is perceived to belong rather than on individual attributes.
With this, you are making a distinction against heterosexual marriage and defining it as two people in a contract rather than traditional male and female marriage. To be clear, its a distinction against traditional marriage as a societal institution, not as two people that are male and female simply getting married.
The definition you brought up is invalid since people have different ideas of what is "just" and "unjust" and obviously the state doesn't make that inherently so.

"Also how does same-sex marriage affect opposite sex marriage?"
It affects society and destroys the traditional marriage institution, whether that is moral or not is a different story from what I brought up here.
Posted 2017-05-03 22:44:06

Rules of the debate

  • Text debate
  • Individual debate
  • 3 rounds
  • 10000 characters per round
  • No reply speeches
  • No cross-examination
  • Community Judging Standard (notes)
  • Forfeiting rounds does not mean forfeiting the debate
  • Images allowed
  • HTML formatting allowed
  • Rated debate
  • Time to post: 1 week
  • Time to vote: 2 weeks
  • Time to prepare: 12 hours
No new arguments in the final round. BOP is shared. I request judges to provide strong RFD's.