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

Gay marriages should be legalized

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: 3/11/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 759 times Debate No: 31191
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)




This is a direct challenge for tyler.schilim. I am setting the following rules:

1st round - Acceptance. No arguments this round
2nd round - Arguments.
3rd round - Rebuttals
4th rounds - Defense of rebuttals, and closing statements.

Please also refrain from using personal attacks and fallacious logic if possible. I await my opponent's acceptance of my challenge.


I hope you know what you are doing, but I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


My arguments for legalizing gay marriage:

Contention 1: It harms nobody, and infringes on nobody's rights.

This one is fairly self-explanatory. Gay marriage does not harm anybody. That's it. If you don't like it, then that's fine, don't get one, but it doesn't cause direct harm towards you if others do so. It is a private act between consenting adults - and for this reason, I expect my opponent to not bring up the exceedingly common argument that marriage will be redefined to include bestiality.

Contention 2: Legalizing gay marriage only affects how the federal government recognizes marriage

This functions as more of a pre-emptive rebuttal to the common argument that by legalizing gay marriage, we are forcing everybody to accept its existence. This is not true. Churches would not be forced to perform gay marriages, and same-sex couples could simply get a marriage license. Only the federal government would be 'required' to accept gay marriages, and only to the extent to provide the same government benefits (such as filing jointly on taxes) as traditional marriages.

Contention 3: The Constitution forbids laws respecting an establishment of religion.

The main argument against gay marriage tends to be that certain religions forbid it. The only other argument is that same-sex couples can't have children on their own, which is easily refuted by the fact that same-sex couples can adopt a child, and the fact that many heterosexual couples choose not to have children. If the main argument against gay marriage is religion, then that means that it is forbidden by the establishment of the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."
Laws such as this cannot be constitutional for this reason, since the only reason to implement them is to respect an establishment of religion. The constitutional thing to do is to give people a choice. If people do not like gay marriage, they don't have to get one. However, if someone does want to have a same sex marriage, we should not go out of our way to prevent them from doing so. This is forcing religion on people who obviously don't want to follow it, or from those who follow a religion that doesn't forbid homosexuality (Reform Judaism is an example).
This is not saying that it is unconstitutional to not legalize gay marriage, but more directly that it is unconstitutional to ban it, which implies the former.

Contention 4: Homosexuality occurs in nature.

I will cite this with a list from Wikipedia, which in turn has 98 citations:
More specifically, on the sexual behavior of bonobos (with several citations from scientific journals as well)
This is a case of homosexual behavior within an entire species. If God created all life on Earth, why would he create something without free will that offends him? This refutes arguments that state that homosexuality is unnatural, and must be addressed before any arguments using it can be addressed.

I await my opponent's arguments. We will both do rebuttals in round 3.


tyler.schillim forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


My opponent has not posted any arguments. Therefore, I have nothing to post this round.


tyler.schillim forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


My opponent has only been forfeiting ever since accepting the debate.


Yeah sorry about that, it's a long story, but I will just have to hand this debate over to you. I will just have to accept the fact that no matter how hard you try to convince your opponent, he/she will never break or give in or doubt the topic at hand which is why I am longer debating. Sorry I could not tell you sooner.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Pennington 5 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 
Reasons for voting decision: FF.