The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Gay Marriage: Legality

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
FactualTrolling has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/21/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 636 times Debate No: 100139
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




If and when you accept, please use proper grammar and spelling in the English language; I find it rather annoying to decipher misspelled words and incorrectly arranged sentences.

Throughout history - from ancient Rome to present day - there have been homosexual couples everywhere. The rulers of the Roman civilization understood that love is love, either between a man and a woman or any combination, and had little - if any - restrictions on homosexual relations or citizens.

Why is it that, even when God tells us to love one another as we love him, that so many scorn those who are attracted to the same gender? I understand that not every religious person feels this way. But to even think about discriminating against someone because of their love interest - whether it be marriage rights or otherwise - is perturbing.

(Apologies for the short beginning argument. I have small amounts of extra time.)


I accept this debate.

First and foremost your opening argument does little to prove or be in favor of the legality of gay marriage.
You're very brief synopsis of homosexuality in Ancient Rome and "throughout history" (that's a very long and unspecific time) is very misleading. There is very little evidence of homosexual couples or love connections between two of the same sex. While it may be true that dominant males in these societies were able to go to places to seek out other young and old males for sex, they often had wives to go home to. No homosexuals were getting married or being in an open relationship during these times. These people would be killed. Rather, male on male sexual activity often included a strong, wealthy male, who had a wife, and a weak and submissive younger male. Furthermore there is very little conclusive evidence of lesbians during these times.

Since we've gotten that out of the way let's try to understand your argument as a principle. Let's pretend your opening argument about the Roman Empire and "throughout history" was accurate and had anything to do with the legality of gay marriage. Does it make sense, on principle, to look at the actions or norms of past societies as a template for our own? "The romans used to have sex with men so therefore we should legalize gay marriage?" How absurd does that sound? Very, right? Just because a past society did something, it does not justify doing it in the present society. The romans used to kill christians, should we do that today? The romans were an extremely patriarchal society. Should we do that too? Pedophelia was also rampant during this time... does that justify legalizing pedophelia today? The answer to all these questions are rather obvious, I'm just pointing out the absurdity in the argument.

It is true, God wants us to love everyone. Telling homosexuals that they cannot perform the sacred tradition of marriage does not mean that the society or any individual does not love gays. It is possible to have a gay friend, who you love, and also not believe in gay marriage. The if one believes in the truth that marriage is between a man and a woman does not mean that individual MUST hate homosexuals. Also, telling someone that they cannot perform in the sacred tradition of marriage does not mean you are telling gay people they cannot love one another. It is possible to love people without getting married. We are also assuming that everyone getting married is doing it out of love. However marriage is much more than that. Arranged marriages are still widespread throughout the world and "throughout history."
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by sboss18 1 year ago
"Homosexuality is NOT natural."
*Citation needed, considering homosexuality is easily observable in nature.

"...please use proper grammar and spelling..."
"Why is it that, even when God tells us to love one another as we love him, that so many scorn those who are attracted to the same gender?"
>that that
Posted by Confucius1 1 year ago
I am not sure if I am the right candidate for this debate, but are you saying that gay marriage should be accepted? To see if I am the right person for this debate let me tell you where I stand :

Homosexuality is NOT natural.
It violates the traditional marriage.
It defeats the purpose of a man and a woman being in a relationship.
It hurts heterosexuals.

These are basically a summary of some of my viewpoints. Obviously I can go little further into them, but I want you to consider. However, I do not think someone should be treated differently because of who they love. In fact I would protest for equal treatment of gays I just don't agree with gay marriage.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.