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

Gay Marriage Should be Allowed

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/24/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 975 times Debate No: 14468
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)




I belive gay marriage should be alllowed for simple reasons. I myself am a heterosexual man, but I believe that every person has the right to live their lives as they see fit. Not allowing gay marriage is effectively infringing upon other people's lives, and not allowing them to be with the sex that brings them fullfillment.

I understand that the Bible condemns homosexuality. Understand though, that the Bible was written when the Romans and Greeks, famous for their horrible sexual practices were in power. Homosexuality was just another act of theirs in which they satisfied deviant thoughts, and that SHOULD be condemned, I agree. But homosexuality is not like that, at least in most cases, in today's times. There are homosexuals who commit to thier partners for the long term, and some adopt, and their children grow to be good adults. What is wrong with it? Take out the Bible's condemnation, justified as it was at the time, and your false belief that all homosexuals are incapable of raising a child effectively, and you have little to argue your case. I'd like to hear what my opponent would have to say though. It's good to hear different opinions.

But here's a story to maybe help show why it is wrong to condemn homosexuality. I've had a friend years back, who I talked to daily for nearly a year. Never knew she was homosexual, and I never knew she had such troubles within her. One day she confided in me a story noone else was ever told. At 12 she was raped by a friend's father, and afterward she could not look at any man, let alone consider being with one without disgust. Years later, she still feels disgusted at men, but does have affection for women. Would you dare tell this poor soul, that she has to force herself to be with a man, who would remind her of the day her childhood was stripped from her, because the Bible says to, because you don't understand it? I myself find it hard to understand, but in this case you can more understand how it is for some people. Her life is difficult enough, without people telling her that she cannot and should not seek out love and affection, which is what you're doing when you condemn homosexuality. I ask that you please, listen to me with an open mind, and see that this belief brings harm to her and who knows how many others. I don't know if more are homosexual by circumstance in their lives or actually born with it, but it still remains the same. People deserve to live their lives, and find happiness. We may not understand, but for their sakes, at least try to be tolerant. We're all people, and we all have the same emotions.

As for people who ask for homosexuals to change, I ask, if homosexuals were a majority and they demanded that you change, what would you say? You wouldn't, and you couldn't even if you wanted to. Everyone is born differently, and everyone's life is different in different ways, further shaping who they become. Some things can be reversed, but some things are attached to the core of our being and make us us. That's how it is.

I hope that I have helped some that were against homosexuality before, see a little more of why it should be allowed. For those that already believed it should be, I hope I've given a stronger reaffirmation of your belief, and that perhaps you too will be willing to stand up for others rights. I am looking forward to hearing what my opponent has to say regarding the matter, and hope that we remain civil throughout it, despite differing views :).

As for sources and statistics, I feel my argument is strong enough despite a lack of them. If my opponent makes good points I might just have to however, and all for the better :). My sources are from my own personal experience and beliefs due to them and how I think. I look forward to a good debate.


Thanks to Pro for making the debate.
Throughout many cultures, including our own (Western/US), marriage has been used to maintain patriarchal domination. Women have been traded from father to husband like property. Her voice in her own condition has been ignored, assuming that a man can control her life. Many women have accepted their marginalization, as do most groups, because it has been beaten into them that they are dependent upon their aggressors. Although not all marriages are physically violent, they are all structurally violent. Marriage is an institution built upon the subjugation of women and should be abolished in all its forms.
Secondly, most concepts of marriage are formed in religion, and in the West, this means Christianity, which explicitly forbids homosexuality (The question should arise is why are Homosexuals faithful to a religion that hates them? they accept structural violence. Most marginalized groups do that.) Marriage is meaningless in a secular context. The entire institution rests on the illusion of partnership, usually monogamous relationships.
Marriage as been so naturalized in our culture that even homosexuals feel the pressure to engage into this violent, dehumanizing institution. The question we should all be asking is why the hell does the government care who we live with. There are certain right married couples get. This should not be in any case, straight or gay.
Debate Round No. 1


Well thanks Dmetal for accepting my debate.

Firstly, I agree that, besides political marriages, ‘patriarchal domination' has been prevalent in marriage since the time man's been born. Neanderthal men are said to knock a woman out and take her if he wanted her. Of course in modern society, that's not the case, but yes, patriarchal domination will always have a presence somewhere. That presence, in today's times though, has faded drastically, at least in well-developed Western countries. Some marriages do not have any form or influence of patriarchal domination in their marriage. Why should these truly devoted, loving, and equal lovers, not have the chance to be wed. That choice should be open to them.

But you cannot say that all, or even most marriages are structurally violent, and for such a statement to be accepted, or even considered by readers, reliable statistics and/or studies that prove that would be in order. I believe that most see that marriage, at least in most cases in Western society nowadays, is not as you state it is. When a partner in a marriage is autocratic, yes of course, it is at the very least most likely structurally violent. But those that are not as you state, or use marriage for these or other wrong reasons, should have that offer open to them.

And sure, many women and other marginalized groups have accepted marginilization and grown dependent on it. Many, but not all. What of the rest? There are strong women, such as Susan B. Anthony, who played a key role in getting women voting rights in America. One example there, of one who refused to be marginalized, in a time where women basically had to accept it. I say this, because it sounds like you believe women and other marginalized groups are helpless, and this is the answer to help them. Susan B. Anthony didn't have to ban marriage to help get women less marginalized. There are better solutions, and ones that have much better chances of working than banning marriage. Banning marriage wouldn't make them less marginalized, there would be other ways to do that, and they would still be dependent. Nothing would be accomplished, or if something were, the gain would be greatly outnumbered by the bad it would bring about.

As for your point of marriage being 'built upon the subjugation of women', yeah, that makes sense to me, I agree. But please realize, that everything in life evolves and changes over time, and may completely change meaning. I will give you example as to what I mean, and then go back to how marriage has changed since it's ill-founded institution.

The pentagram, a symbol of evil today, in Medieval times was the equivalent of the cross in today's times. The pentagram's five points represented the five wounds of Christ on the cross. It is completely different, and viewed completely differently than it was upon its creation. It has no good connection to Christ in today's times.

Marriage, while it has not had such a shift, is not the same either as when it was created. Nothing stays the same forever. Everything changes, however slight or drastic, as time and life pass us by.

So sure, marriage was used that way in the beginning, and still today, but it has evolved much more than that since then. It should not be abolished.

As for why homosexuals would accept Christianity, when it forbids sexuality, I won't go into that. It is irrelevent to this debate. I will say though, that it wouldn't be because they accept structural violence. If you would like to debate this topic afterward, I will accept the challenge.

As for homosexuals feeling 'pressured' to engage in the act of marriage because it's so 'naturalized', I don't understand how you could come to this conclusion. People love, and people want to express that love, and with marriage, that love is acknowledged, and they get the rights that they should rightfully have. Being against not being allowed to be wed, has nothing at all to do with being marginalized, or being pressured. I respect your opinions, but I don't understand this one at all. Homosexuals love as well, and that love should not be denied to them. I wish that someday people will see this and at least be tolerant. You haven't expressed any intolerance in this debate about homosexuals though, so that isn't the issue. You do have a few good points though.

Now the last quote you said, I agree with completely. 'Why the hell does the government care who we live with?'.
People have their set beliefs, and the politicians that vote on these matters are obviously still predominantly against gay marriage. It's wrong, and they shouldn't even have the power to infringe on anyone's personal life in so drastic a way, but regardless they do. I agree with you completely on this, but the fact is, most people, especially politicians, believe people should life by their views. If they have the power to make people follow their rules, they will.

But this last point is also irrelevent to the debate. It provides no additional information as to why marriage should be abolished. A good point, but nonetheless, still irrelevent to this debate.

Banning marriage would not solve any problems in the end, and would only create a number of them. I hope to hear what my opponent has to say in response to me. Thanks again to Dmetal for accepting my challenge.



Dmetal forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by SpeakYourMind 5 years ago
Hmm.. against all marriages eh? Well I'd imagine there aren't many against ALL marriages, and might just not vote for him/her or at all if that point is made, even if they are against homosexual marriages. Thank you for the tip though.
Posted by Grape 5 years ago
I am not taking this because I am already in a similar debate, but I will just let you know: some people are against all marriages and they will debate this resolution on that premise.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Justin-L 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by wjmelements 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60