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

Homosexuals should be given the same rights as heterosexuals.

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/26/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,401 times Debate No: 19006
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)




I will be affirming the topic: Homosexuals should be given the same rights as heterosexuals. To support the affirmation, I will support two basic contentions.

1. There is good reason to give equal rights to homosexuals
2. There is no good reason to deprive equal rights from homosexuals

Contention 1: Good Reason for Equal Rights

Sub Point A: Homosexuals are no less human than a heterosexual.
To deprive rights from any living creature emphasizes their subhuman position in society. For example, dogs or cats possess little rights concerning property or freedom, yet humans, on average, respect such a pet's right to live a healthy life. An ant lies even lower on this societal food chain. These animals do not possess several rights for either lacking cognitive abilities to understand them (owning property/ freedom of religion) or lack of a person's ability to care for the life of say an insect. To imply that a dog shares the same level on the societal scale as a homosexual would be extremely ignorant and discriminatory. A homosexual is born of two homo-sapien parents, just like a heterosexual, shares the same organs as a heterosexual and, above all, behaves similarly (with the only difference in sexual orientation) to a heterosexual. To imply that a heterosexual should be given more rights than a homosexual would be to embrace an extremely bigoted and discriminatory mentality.

Subpoint B: Relationships between partners of the same gender should no more bother anyone than a relationship between two straight partners.

The actions between two partners, in either a homosexual or heterosexual relationship, should not realistically bother anyone. Due to their obvious humanity, a gay man or women can feel love and other emotions no more or less than a straight man or women. To deny any human being the right to express their love for another at home or in public would be immoral. So why discriminate another simply for being interested in the same gender? Even if the relationship between two gay men were to offend you, their relationship is none of your business. The government, unless under extreme circumstances (and sexuality is not one of them), should have no right to dictate your thoughts and feelings.

Contention 2:There is no good reason to deprive equal rights from homosexuals

Sub-point A: God Hates Gays

The largest demographic I know of against the gay community culminates from the Christian faith (specifically those more fundamental than the regular Christian crowd). These individuals claim homosexuality has been deemed unworthy before God and, therefore, should not be practiced. However there are a few flaws with this argument. The first being that there is no proof that God exists (this is not the debate at this moment so I do not wish to get into a God debate within a different debate). Second, plenty of other things stated in the bible reflect that God finds many things unacceptable. For example, capitalism embraces that which one of the ten commandments admonishes against (thou shalt not covet thy neighbors goods) by encouraging the creation of products and feeding off of man's desire to buy those products (I'm sure many a bible has been sold through capitalism). God also commands that those that work on the Sabbath should be stoned to death (ludicrous). The God of the bible hated many things that Christians now indulge in or use. The third flaw with this argument is that Jesus spoke that his disciples must "love thy neighbor as thyself." The character of Jesus spoke of universal love, regardless of creed, race, and clearly not sexuality. The fourth argument against this is that regardless of faith, America is not a Christian nation. The founding fathers of our country were deistic and felt a country under religion would lead to the same problems experienced under the British. To dictate that biblical law should affect our politics would be to violate the separation of church and state. If we are to imply that gays should not be given equal rights because the bible says so, then we must cover up all women like the Qur'an dictates (after all, we need to be fair to everybody). The fifth and final counter against this argument is that if you believe a homosexual is going to hell, why do you care if they show it in public or have the same rights? They aren't going to be "gayying up" your afterlife, so why does it matter to you? Clearly the God argument is not permissible in this topic.

Subpoint B: Unnatural!

According to the homophobic community, the practice of sexual activity between two men or women is unnatural. Again, like the God argument, this argument has flaws. The first flaw is that they simply define natural as being two partners of different gender procreating. The problem with this assumption is that most plants are removed from this definition of natural, as with cells and other natural forms of life that don't practice the male/female practice of procreation. Also this leaves us to question what is unnatural? Clothing, by this narrow definition, would be unnatural (in any definition it should be, but this only shows that the natural quality of something should not dictate its moral standing) The second flaw with this argument builds off of the last: Unnaturalness does not imply wrong or right. If we were to accept that unnatural things are morally wrong, then we must, to be morally right, become naked vagabonds, hunting food without the use of fire to cook the meat. Clearly, even if we were to accept the argument that homosexuality was "unnatural," that doesn't make it any more or less wrong, just like looking at this debate through a computer screen isn't more or less wrong.

I will make a notice that the Second Contention was based on the most prominent arguments made by the homophobic community. I do not assume that these arguments will be supported by my opponent. The simply act as an overall rebuttal to the arguments at large. I look forward to a great debate!


Let me first declare this argument is about homosexual marriage, and not any semantics about technical equal rights.

I hope this will be a fun and fufilling debate! My name is Jesse, by the way.

Tell me Jesse, what is Marriage, and who can be involved?

Marriage is when two (or more, in some cultures) persons pronounce their love to eachother and dedicate themselves to the other person's well being.

Wow! That is beautiful. But wait, why does the state have to be involved?

The state recognizes the special social value in a pair of persons with procreative ability. They-the state-provides a licence to these people that states they are allocated from the rest of society, and should begin attempting to create more people as soon as possible. The state provides tax cuts along with social programs for those who are married.

So you don't think Gays should marry? What about infertile couples? Should they not be allowed?

Any couple is allowed to try and procreate. Trying to separate the infertile from fertile would be dehumanizing, unproductive, and, worst of all, a waste of money. Almost all couples who are hetero sexual are able to procreate at certain times, while noone who is homo sexual is able to at any time.


Contention 1: Sub Point A

I agree completely.

Contention 1: Sub Point B

The state does not care if people sleep with or have relationships with multiple partners at the same time, animals, or inanimate objects. However, it is still illegal to marry these things for apparently not-so-obvious reasons. The purpose of state honored marriage, as defined above, is to place special social value on a stable way to bring children into the world. You are completly right about the government staying out of personal relationships, though.

Contention 2: Sub Point A

God does not hate Gays. He simply hates homosexual thoughts or actions, just like he hates lustful thoughts or actions, or wrathful thoughts or actions. Still, if America rules by the majority vote, and most people believe in God, we should not create laws the majority does not percieve as beneficial.

Contention 2: Sub Point B

Homosexuality is not natural. If something were natural, it would survive by itself in at least one scenario. Gays cannot suvive without their heterosexual counterparts. Putting clothing on people would also help them survive in some scenarios, along with eyeglasses and technology.

I agree this is a moot point, and I have not approached this in my argument.


The state has no business honoring homosexual marriage. They might as well stay out of homosexual marriage altogether. However, the state does have business in honoring heterosexual marriage, since the procreative ability is almost always beneficial to society as a whole.

Recognize heterosexual marriage, but not homosexual marriage.

I turn over to my opponent now.
Debate Round No. 1


It seems I've made an error with the topic. The problem with the homosexual issue does not lie with them not having the same rights as homosexuals, but having the rights that their party SHOULD rightfully have, which is a different debate from the topic at hand. In fact, the topic at hand is already confirmed (homosexuals can marry just as a straight person (so long as it is with the opposite gender)). So it seems that debating this anymore would be pointless. Thus, I concede the debate to my opponent and apologize for making such a pointless topic. If they would like, I could reword a new topic to "Marriage should be not be isolated to a union between a man and a women," or something along those lines to debate THAT issue.


Alright dude :P

We could have kept arguing, though. Idgaf about the title.
Debate Round No. 2


tbaldwin94 forfeited this round.


shift4101 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


tbaldwin94 forfeited this round.


shift4101 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


tbaldwin94 forfeited this round.


shift4101 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Chamaeleon 6 years ago
You're leaving yourself open to a trick debate. You say homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals, but in most places, it's only legal for heterosexuals to marry a legally consenting human of the opposite sex, so if you give homosexuals the exact same rights, then....they still can't marry someone of the same sex. You should clarify that you want homosexuals to have the right to be married, serve in the military, etc. Or that everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, should have the right to marry whoever they want or serve in military, be a priest, or whatever.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 6 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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: concede
Vote Placed by logicrules 6 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: Premise is flawed. Con states assumptions as if they were fact.
Vote Placed by ApostateAbe 6 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: Concession