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

Gays Should Have Separate Quarters

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: 1/10/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,116 times Debate No: 20327
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)




I will be arguing that, in the military and other fields where separation of genders is required for living arrangements, gays should have their own separate living quarters.

I am not doing this out of discrimination due to intolerance or any ill such as that but for reasons I will later lay out.


No ad hominem
No posting new arguments in the final round

This round is for acceptance only.

gays = homosexuals
separate = not in conjunction to, apart
quarters = living and sleeping areas
should = a basis of opinion, something that I believe should happen

This debate is about the resolution only, do not accept if you think you will try to derail it onto the morality or lack there of of homosexuality or anything like that.

Thank you.



I accept the arguement you have posed and will be argueing that in the military gay people should not have seperate living quarters.

I agree with the previously deined terms but would like to clarify that gay= homosexuals also includes those of a female gender and not just the male type.
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for accepting this debate.


Traditionally men and women do not bunk together for myriad reasons some of the most common being sexual attraction, embarrassment over nudity and other bodily functions, and a lack of shared interests (i.e. hair and makeup etc). These same principles apply to homosexuals as well.

Sexual Attraction

Letting gays share dorms or quarters with people of the same sex will be akin to allowing certain men to bunk in the woman's dormitory. Letting homosexuals remain in the quarters of their own sex can cause heterosexuals to feel uncomfortable. The idea of your roommate, let's say a gay man, sharing the same area where you shower and change is an extremely disturbing thought for most people. It's not that the homosexuals keep bad company but the thought of the possibility of your roommate finding you sexually attractive would be an awkward situation that should not be allowed to happen.

Lack of Similar Interests

While this may not seem like an important point to bring up it can have a strong affect on how well roommates get together. If there are one or two homosexuals in a dorm or tent housing many other straight people there could be a conflict of interests. There is a distinctive gay culture [1] (it's not present in all gays, no, but it exists in many) that could clash with heterosexual culture such as the idea of multiple partners, gay exclusive bars and clubs, or even talking about other gays or sexual activities. Heterosexuals could find these topics to be distasteful leading to a division. It also works vis-a-versa where say, gay men might not want to hear about the hottest actresses or models, they might not want to discuss women or in some cases other masculine activities. This potential lack of similar interests could cause awkward divisions in living spaces or even conflict amongst roommates.


Letting homosexuals share space with heterosexuals in a living environment could lead to conflict and even marginalization. The fact that a single person or few people are homosexual could lead the rest of the group to outcast or marginalize them. Different treatment between people could crop up due to lack of interests or intolerance.

"It has often been said that permitting open homosexuality in the armed services would create conflict between homosexuals in the ranks and those who disapprove of homosexuality, thus undermining good order and discipline..." [2]

"Unfortunately, we have a minority of service members who are still racists and bigoted and you will never be able to get rid of all of them." [2] - Lt. Gen. Thomas Bostick

As you can see from these excerpts the worries over conflict between straights and gays have been mentioned and there are intolerant people, there will always be intolerant people.


The separation of gays will be in now way a discriminatory action. This separation will be in benefit of both sides and is no different than the separation of men from women. Based on these differences and in order to avoid harmful or awkward situations the two groups should be separated. It would simply be a place for homosexuals to bunk apart from the heterosexuals during "living time" such as showering, changing and sleeping. Everything else can stay the same. The same rec-rooms, same eating areas, same sports teams etc. Just in living situations where these differences are most likely to manifest themselves they should be separated on the same grounds that men and women are separated.

Preferred, Accepted and Neutral

Some colleges have already started setting up "gender neutral" housing and LGBT zones for the same reasons I have just laid out and it has been found that gays actually prefer it! [3] They say some feel safer and more comfortable rooming with neutral people of the opposite sex or others of the same sexual orientation as themselves.

"Today's college students, gay or straight, are more likely to have close friends of a different gender and this housing option is simply the next step in the evolution of college housing," says Jeffrey Chang, co-founder and associate director of National Student Genderblind Campaign. [3]

This being said I see no reason that gays and straights should have separate living arrangements since both sides will benefit and feel more comfortable. Separate or neutral housing areas are now being introduced into society and have been found to be effective, accepted and preferred to the traditional style of living.

Thank you.



Skittishnymph forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Unfortunately my opponent has forfeited...

Please Vote Pro and if Con reads this please concede so we don't have to wait a week to finish...


Skittishnymph forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3



Con Forfeits.

Vote Pro.


Skittishnymph forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by ConservativePolitico 4 years ago
I might. Thinking about it.
Posted by Maikuru 4 years ago
I was so looking forward to this! I hope you repost it, CP.
Posted by Mr.Infidel 4 years ago
Pro, can you challenge me to this debate?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 4 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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Obvious vote is obvious.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 4 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO was the only one who presented any arguments.