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

Gay marrage

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/27/2013 Category: News
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,234 times Debate No: 31785
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)




I am ashamed at people WHY? why can't gays get married huh and don't give me the whole Its against Religion because THERE IS NO PROOF HE/SHE IS REAL


I accept this debate.
I am requesting a resolution and definitions to suit it.
Debate Round No. 1


Could you be more clear about that I'm a bit confused by what you mean.


This is wasting rounds, but alright.
A resolution is pretty much the topic. For example:
Resolved: The United States ought to ban assault weapons.

It is the topic that we are going to stick to. Additionally, the Aff must provide definitions from the resolution. For example, define "ought", "justified", etc.
Debate Round No. 2


OK i mean you can't claim that Gay marriage is against the bible that is not usable because there is no proof it is real for example ( being gay is gay is against Christianity) that is what i mean.
now for the debate gay marriage should be allowed because what is truly wrong with it


You have not provided definitions or a resolution. You are wasting rounds. Use grammar that I can read and I will debate. This is a joke.
Debate Round No. 3


Sorry but I stand by my point


I will assume the position of contradicting that Gay Marriage should be allowed.
My opponent has provided no real topic besides this, and he has provided no definitions.

My opponent has provided no claims or arguments. All my opponent said was that it "should be allowed". I as the con have the responsibility for negative the Pro. The Pro must provide reasoning for why it should be allowed. However, a few reasons of my own.

Gay marriage is not beneficial. Why? Marriage is something needed for societies to survive. It is obvious, gay marriage will not produce more children. My opponent, being the pro, should show why it would be beneficial for the homosexuals to be married, as there was none given so far.

I am not, in anyway, attacking homosexuals. I am simply stating that marriage is not something that homosexuals need. It is not my job as the Con to talk about whether they deserve rights or anything similar; it is only my job to negate that homosexuals should be married. Of course, children growing up with these environments will believe that it is a choice to be homosexual, and more people may take part in this, and thus, pro-creative activity is lowered. Many studies have been conducted over the last two centuries and none of them have been able to locate any appreciable difference biologically between a gay person and a heterosexual person. [1]

Additionally, having the father and mother figure has become a society norm, and it can be known to weaken traditional family values by doing differently.

Marriage is overall the most serious institution we have, and it only makes biological sense that men and women become married, considering they can pro-create while homosexuals cannot, and this of course proves to be beneficial; reproduction. My opponent has not shown in anyway why gay marriage should be valued, and overall, my opponent simply has no case, and I urge a Con vote.
Debate Round No. 4


you wanna hear some reasons fine
1 The Christian are incredible jerks calming gays are the work of the devils
2 Childless DOESN'T MATTER so what about children needing parents (adoption)
3 Plus what do straight families have that is soo more important


In response to my opponent:

1) I have never even brought up Christians, the Bible, or Religion.
2) You missed the point. The point was that homosexuals can not take part in pro-creative activity.
3) Pro-creative activity, considered biologically correct, traditional family values.
4) Gays are people. I concede.

My opponent made no argument against my case. I urge a con vote. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by TheSlenderMan 5 years ago
Wow Pro, this has got to be the worst debate I've seen. Not the whole debate, just your side. Whether anyone agrees or disagrees with Con, it's undeniable that he used rational while you used...well, nonsense.

Con never said they weren't people. To imply he thought this was childish and absurd.
You also put a blanket statement on Christians. It seems you don't know the Christian community too well. Sounds as if you listen to the media a tad bit too much.
You sound like you're bitter against something. Not sure if it's because of not being able to respond intellectually to an intellectual argument or something else but you should work on expressing your ideas in a way that sounds calm and rational.

"Childless DOESN'T MATTER so what about children needing parents (adoption)." We are not here to shout out our opinions and leave it at that. You never once backed a statement you made. You gave a good start by stating that a point made by Con didn't matter. But you never proceeded to back that statement up.

Work on your grammar. I don't mind mistakes (everyone makes them) but it was pretty bad. Also, please refrain from using text type on this site.

One last thing: Don't start a debate unless you are prepared to actually debate it. Know why you think a certain way before challenging someone to an intellectual discussion. That is indeed the whole point of this site.
Posted by Kevin626 5 years ago
pro-creation doesn't matter. there are many straight couples who can get married who cannot have children such as grandparents, women with reproductive system problems and many more. it is not about pro-creation it is about LOVE.
Posted by nathanknickerbocker.9 5 years ago
O i see nvm the last one i posted
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Misterscruffles 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: "The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with bad arguments." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Vote Placed by phantom 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 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: Con clearly tried a lot harder than pro. While I don't find it convincing in any way, con had a structured case which pro ignored. Pro went on a a little rant about religion and equality that was irrelevant. Con's case didn't rest on religion nor did it deny that gays are people.