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

Gay Marriage should be legal.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/11/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,857 times Debate No: 17468
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (14)
Votes (2)




First round is for acceptance. Good luck to my
opponent whoever it maybe.


Well, I shall attempt to argue honorably and valiantly. I accept, my good madam.
Debate Round No. 1


Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, an air conditioning.

Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Brittany Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.

Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.

Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

A common and simplistic meaning is that heterosexual relationships are “natural” because that is what we find in nature, whereas we don’t find homosexual relationships. The latter are therefore unnatural and should not be validated by society. A perfect example of this attitude towards the “unnaturalness” of homosexuality was expressed by Peter Akinola, Anglican Archbishop of Nigeria:

I cannot think of how a man in his senses would be having a sexual relationship with another man. Even in the world of animals — dogs, cows, lions — we don’t hear of such things.



First, I would like to thank my opponent for the opportunity to debate this topic, as well as put forth a definition of gay marriage.

Gay marriage (aka same-sex marriage): the practice of marriage between two males or two females [1].

That being said, however, I have found that Con has not in any way truly defended her position that gay marriage should not be legal, and, to my perception, actually arguing her points sarcastically, showing that she isn't seriously defending her view--save for a short paragraph stating that homosexual relationships are not found in nature--ergo, are unnatural.

Homosexuality is NOT Unnatural

As I stated before, it is Con's belief that homosexual relationships do not occur in nature. However, it is estimated that 1,500 species of animals, inlcuding lions, dolphins, killer whales, and the dwarf chimpanzee, "which is one of humanity's closes relatives," [2]. So, Con's only serious argument (in my perception) is debunked, as homosexuality does in fact appear in animals which are in nature.

Homosexuality is Not A Conscious Decision

When looking at homosexulity, it may be easy for someone to believe that a person's desires are a choice. The problem with this theory is that it is simply not true. The American Psychological Association, among many other well known organizations, has officially declared that homosexuality is not in fact a conscious choice or decision [3].

While the APA has said that homosexuality is not a choice, it has pointed out that homosexual acts clearly are not. However, whil some may view this as reason to be against gay marriage, I submit that it is not a valid reason to be against gay marriage. My reasoning behind this is the fact that expecting homosexuals to repress sexual urges (unreasonably, of course) is just as unfair as expecting heterosexuals to unreasonably repress sexual urges on simple logic grounds. It has been determined that neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality are conscious decisions. As well, Con has not given any reason as to why homosexual acts are immoral. Thus, logically speaking, one should not be expected to repress any resulting desires (within reason) whilst the other is not expected to.

Marriage is a Basic Right

In Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it is stated that all men and women have the basic human right to be married and raise a family [4]. This document was written by the United Nations as a standard for all member nations (including the United States of America, which I'm assuming is the country being argued about as far as legalization,) to follow. So, according to that, the USA should allow same sex marriage.

Homosexual Unions are Being Discriminated Against

It is true that, in the United States, currently marriage is legally defined as "only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife," [5]. But this, following the logic I laid out in "Not a Conscious Decision," can be considered unfair and discriminatory. As I stated before, heterosexual marriages are based on love and commitment as well as heterosexual acts to express that love and commitment whilst enjoying a slew of federal rights--over 1,000 [6]. However, a homosexual couple cannot express that same love and commitment whilst enjoying all of those same federal rights. In fact, only 10 of American States only provide legal recognization as high as a civil union--which provides all of the same rights as marriage, but only on a state level; federal rights are excluded. As well, even more states only have unions with some of the given rights, or don't give any rights at all [7]. And again, seeing as how Con has not provided a serious reason as to why homosexual relations are inferior to heterosexual relations, not universally providing homosexual unions with full equal rights is therefore discriminatory, unfair, and immoral.


To summarize my rebuttal and opening statements, I give you my positions contention, based on premises I have proved in my previous sections.

(P1) Homosexuality is not unnatural.

(P2) Homosexuality, nor its acts have been proved inferior to heterosexuality or its acts.

(P3) Marriage is a basic human right.

(P4) Homosexual unions are unfairly not being given full and equal rights as heterosexual unions.

(C) Therefore, homosexual marriages with full and equal rights should be legalized and put into effect.





[4] (Article 16)




Thank you, and I await Con's response.
Debate Round No. 2


forfeit vote pro


I thank Con for giving me the opportunity to argue about this topic.
Debate Round No. 3


caitlin12419 forfeited this round.


Once again, thank you. Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 4
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by seraine 7 years ago
Posted by caitlin12419 7 years ago
shut up man this is my first time
Posted by seraine 7 years ago
Is she secretly pro? Most of this seriously seems like she is either a) trolling or b) attempting to demonstrate the fail in many anti gay marriage arguments.
Posted by caitlin12419 7 years ago
deathbeofredishoneer is my bro soo give me a break!!
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 7 years ago
lol cuz she sucks at debate. I just said its her first debate. I'm working on teaching her. lol :)
Posted by GMDebater 7 years ago
or a multi account? If it is your sister, why does she seem to be arguing for pro?
Posted by Deathbeforedishonour 7 years ago
haha actually it's my sister and its the first debate shes ever done. :P
Posted by Contradiction 7 years ago
Ninja, just say something like: "My opponent is (1) not serious about this debate and (2) has plagiarized her argument. As such, I extend all of my arguments and urge a vote for Pro."
Posted by GMDebater 7 years ago
This person is either a serious troll or a dumb@$$. Con, yu're AGAINST SSM? Pro, use this to your advantage. Also, con nice copy+Paste
Posted by DetectableNinja 7 years ago
I seriously regret accepting this challenge. Seriously--either Con is trolling or she dosn't understand that in this debate she's arguing against gay marriage. Any advice on how to respond to this? Because normally I would rebut/argue, but this case is kind of confusing me.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Voting Pro on request of Con.
Vote Placed by kohai 7 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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Plagiarism and forfeit. Clear win