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

Gay marriage should be legalized in the United States (2)

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/11/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 908 times Debate No: 33570
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




Gay marriage should not be legalized, for many reasons. One, it is immoral and is banned in most major religions. Second, it is unnatural. A family must consist of one man and one woman to carry out their respective motherly and fatherly roles. A same sex couple can not use this universal rule of marriage, and can definitely not raise adopted children the same way biological children of opposite sex couples are raised. Third, if gay marriage is legalized in the United States, think of the repercussions... the people will then start demanding legalization of other unnatural and immoral forms of marriages and sexual relationships, such as polygamy and sodomy.


Thank You AmericanNationalist for challenging me to this debate. I understand that this is hot topic and I hope that we and anyone commenting on this debate can stay civil.

For expediency, I will be copying and pasting some material I wrote in a previous debate. In the first round I will argue homosexuality is not immoral, and the next round I will address any additional arguments against gay marriage.

Marriage goes against the clear commands of God.
For this argument to have any merit, we must first assume God exists. After we assume there is a God, next follows what in philosophy is known as Divine Command Theory. This is theory itself isn't necessarily soundproof, if anyone wants to see why please watch the videos on Divine Command Theory, and at the very least watch Divine Command Theory Part 3

For the sake of argument, let's assume that Divine Command Theory is correct and whatever God says is moral is whats moral. Let us next assume, for simplicity's sake, that the true word of God is the King James Bible. We can now choose either a strict or loose interpretation of the Bible.

A strict interpretation entails we follow the bible to the letter of the word. This itself creates logical inconsistencies that make it difficult to follow (possibly due to language translations), such as

EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.

This is a logical contradiction because God is the man or war and God is peace, or that God is peaceful and God is not peaceful, and according to what is called Reductio Ad Absurdum, we must reject this idea. Since the strict interpretation of the bible is contradictive, if the bible is to be followed it must be through the loose interpretation of the bible.

Other implications of strict interpretations of the bible could include stoning women who were raped in the city who "did not scream loud enough" and stoning any man who looks at the wife of another man. However given my experience most religious doctrines believe we must seek the message underlying the words.

The loose interpretation is also present difficulties because it gives rise to many different interpretations and forces us to understand why God would say what he said. Most churches will agree that the bible was pretty straightforward with the message that homosexuality is a sin, but they glance over why God may have said what he did. I would argue that the original purpose of the immorality of homosexuality was because, at the time it was written, people were dying much more frequently (relative to the world's population) and in order to ensure the continuity of mankind, we needed to breed. Given that this is no longer the problem, rather we may even face potential overpopulation, it follows that homosexuality can no longer be deemed immoral since we do not need to rush to create more people.

Before I move to the next arguments, I believe I should also quickly point out that most churches do not follow Divine Command Theory, but the next ethical theory called Natural Law Theory.

Homosexuality isn't NATURAL.
This derives from the notion that whatever occurs naturally is what is moral. This raises some very disturbing problems, since under certain interpretations rape is morally justifiable and most modern medical practices would be immoral. In some cases, it could also contradict with biblical translations (it is natural for us to seek revenge and to not forgive, but many religions preach forgiveness in all things) For a more detailed list of the aspects of Natural Law Theory, its implications, and its criticisms, please watch the videos on Natural Law Theory

For the sake of argument let's now assume that Natural Law Theory is correct. We now encounter very difficult question of determining what is and what is not natural. One could say, for example, that man (or woman, but I'll refer to man simply to adhere to traditional terms) cannot act outside his nature, thus nothing is moral or immoral. If we say only human beings can act outside their nature, then we have the ability to perform moral and immoral deeds. However this implies that animals can act only in accordance with nature because they cannot act outside of nature. If certain animals engage in homosexuality, then in accordance of this translation homosexuality is morally permissible.


In order to get around animals being homosexual and to still deem human homosexuality as immoral, homophobic proponents must somehow say that there is some defective characteristic, perhaps Satan influenced the minds to act this way. This argument simply fails because they would have to show that all these animals possessed some sort of free will to commit sins in the first place. This seems to contradict many of the fundamentals of religious doctirnes.


In conclusion, homosexuality is not a sin and it is not immoral even under Divine Command Theory and Natural Divine Theory.
Debate Round No. 1


Whether or not God or religious law deems homosexuality moral or immoral, there are many other branches on this tree.

It is very unnatural to see couples of the same sex engaging in an intimate or sexual relationship. Nature determines a person's sexuality, and a person's outside environment can have an impact on sexual preference. While some scientists claim there is a "gay gene," other, more well respected scientists claim that this is epigenetic; where environmental factors directly impact the gene. Therefore, sexuality can be controlled, as your environment and lifestyle can be altered. If you are a heterosexual, you can jut as easily become homosexual, and vice versa.

Finally, there is the future. During the sexual revolution in the 60s, new experimentations and ideas led the people to demand recognition and legalization of gay marriage. This change in idea was the same for abortion, when one new idea led to several new ideas. If gay marriage is legalized in the United States, there would be a demand for greater sexual freedom, going far behind the traditional relationship of one man and one woman. America is already losing grip on our traditions, and we must not let this one new, unconventional method of marriage lead to more. Since gay marriage has come about, other immoral relationships, such as polygamy, have been discussed in our courts. Essentially, the question is, what's next? Where does America stop? After gay marriage is legal, then the people will start demanding legalization of polygamy, sodomy, and cousin marriage.

All in all, what happens next is my biggest worry, not what religious or natural laws claim. I fear that the people will not know when to stop, and that eventually, we will go to a point so far, that all morality will cease to exist.


Thank You AmericanNationalist you actually brought up some very intelligent points that I'm sure are the logical foundations for people who oppose homosexuality and gay marriage.
To be honest I haven't really looked very hard for any studies to determine whether homosexuality is biologically determined, determined by their enviroments, or even if it is or is not a choice. I'm sure their are examples which support each position.

For the sake of argument let's say that your right, the enviroment someone is raised in determines their sexuality. However just because something is unnatural does not make it wrong. Consider this hypothetical case:

A 3 year old girl has a heart condition that will slowly and painfully kill her. She is in utter agony every second of every day, and she will be for 6 months until she dies. A heart surgeon has the skills and expertise needed to save her life and end her suffering. In order to do so, he will need to use some very powerful pain medications, sophisticated medical equipment, and she will need a blood transfusion. If the surgeon saves her life, he will have used measures that seem to be quite unnatural. It was not natural for the child to utilize pain killers, a natural part of life is to feel pain. It was not natural for the doctor to use sophisticated medical equipment, he should only have used his hands and knowledge. It was also unnatural for the child to use someone else's blood, but she would have died an agonizing death otherwise. Therefore I believe we can intuitively see how just because something is unnatural does not mean it is bad.

Similiarly, even if homosexuality is unnatural and it is determined by the enviroment in which they are raised, it does not mean this is a bad thing. If someone is happier being heterosexual, then they should be heterosexual. If someone is happier being homosexual, then they should be homosexual. All that should matter is what makes that person the happiest.

Next, what your referring to is known as the slippery slope argument. It basically says that if we allow one thing, more bad things will occur. Philosophers actually consider this argument to be a very tricky argument to use, and can easily be fallacious.

For example, assume a light rain starts outside your house. A slippery slope argument could be made that since its started to rain a little, a downpour is inevitable. The problem with this is that it could just as easily stop raining and become sunny again. Before we can make a valid slippery slope argument, we must know more about the weather conditions, or in this case more about the gay marriage debate.

Unless I'm mistaken most proponents of gay marriage are do not support polygamy or incest. Sodomy maybe, but whether or not that's illegal or not would not prevent people, straight or gay, from doing it, and the foundations for why its immoral seem shaky to me. What I think is ACTUALLY going on is that there has and always will be small groups of people that fervently believe that polygamy, incest, and probably even child molestation should be allowed. When they see sexual reform movements they try to push harder to try and meet their agendas, but this does not mean we need to listen to them. However anti-gay marriage and anti-homosexual proponents will point to these groups as if the arised for the first time, and claim we are losing our moral foundations.

Debate Round No. 2


To end my side of the debate, I believe that homosexuality and gay marriage is immoral, unnatural, disgusting, and a step in the "slippery slope" of marriage freedoms. I believe that marriage was always intended to be between one man and one woman, and that their roles would be to reproduce and pass on genetic information to their offspring, and to raise said offspring with motherly and fatherly love only found in heterosexual couples. Whether or not God deemed homosexuality moral, I argue in a more modern sense; that homosexuality is scientifically/biologically unnatural and can be voluntarily controlled. I also argue that the slippery slope is the most dangerous path for and America which is losing its traditional morals and values. I fear that if gay marriage is legalized, people will demand that polygamy, sodomy, etc. should also be legalized. Thank you for debating with me; I enjoyed learning about how you feel about gay marriage.


Thank You AmericanNationalist for engaging me in this debate.

What I believe is one of the root causes for opposition to gay marriage is the thought that homosexuality is "gross." Gay marriage is not the core issue. The issue is the perception that homosexuality is immoral, and any promotion or legalization of homosexuality is an affront to "morality." Most legitimate ethical theories support homosexuality as morally permissible, and I would argue that most other people who use Natural Law Theory and/or Divine Command Theory to dictate its immorality are doing so under a flawed interpretation.

Just because someone believes a practice is disgusting does give them the justification to deem it immoral or prohibit it. Homosexuality is not unnatural because it is practiced by thousands of animals who cannot act outside natural instincts. And lastly Gay Marriage is not a slippery slope towards other immoral sexual practices for the simple reason that homosexuals typically do not support them. This is why I support legalizing gay marriage.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by silvertechfilms 3 years ago
Anything a human does is natural. We are apart of nature.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by imabench 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Massive win by the pro as con cited only his own (warped) opinions as evidence.