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

Is Gay Marriage Okay?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/17/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,315 times Debate No: 93851
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)




Lately where I am from, I have meet a lot of people who are opposed to gay marriage. Same thing with using Facebook and other social media sites I have seen a lot of people who are anti-gay marriage but never give any actual reason why. Now I'm a straight person and 100% pro-gay marriage and just wanted to know why people dislike the believe of gay marriage?

I'm for gay marriage
Opponent is against


I will hopefully provide you with an explanation.
I accept the challenge.
This is my first debate on this website though just so you know.
Debate Round No. 1


It's okay this my first debate on this site also.

I was just wondering why are so many people against the idea of gay marriage? Based on all the arguments I have heard, whether it be religion based, or it's unnatural, etc... I don't understand why there is so much hate towards it.

1. All of people say that gays/lesbians shouldn't marry because it's against the Bible. The thing about this one it doesn't say anyone specifically in the bible being gay is a sin (as far as I believe). People bring up the fact that God may Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve but the fact against that is there is nowhere specifically in the Bible it says that "no two men or no two women can be in love for that it is sin". Also even if it did say that in the bible, not only Christian people get married, Buddhist, Muslims, Jewish people, and Atheist all get married so saying marriage is only a Christian religious ceremony isn't true. Lastly on topic, on the event I am wrong and gay/lesbian relationships is seen as a sin in the bible, so what? We as humans don't have the right to judge those sins because we all sin whether it is lust, jealously, envy, hatred, sloth, etc...

2. People also say gays shouldn't marry because they can't reproduce. This one is an annoying stance because even though gays/lesbians can't reproduce that shouldn't be a big deal for the fact that there are many straight people who can't reproduce. For instance: women are barren can't have children, women who get abortions or males who get vasectomies can't or don't want to have children, and there are other cases where the couple can't or don't want to have children, but because of this should they also not marry? And according to FosterClubs in 2014 there was about 415,129 kids in foster care so if a gay /lesbian couple do get married and want a kid that's one kid that gets out of that system and goes into a family who loves and cares about them.
(ttps:// info for my numbers


To start off I would like to say that this debate is about gay marriage not simply about being gay. I don"t think that the government has the right to ban homosexuals from participating in gay acts. While I would encourage homosexuals to stop participating in such activities, that is a separate issue. The government does however have the right to ban homosexuals from getting married.
My first point is the Bible. I recognize that this is not a sufficient reason for some, but you seem to think that homosexuality is not found in the bible. The Bible doesn"t mention it often, likely because it wasn"t an issue in biblical times, but it does have a few things to say about the issue.

Leviticus 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Leviticus 20:13, "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

1 Corinthians 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Romans 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

The bible clearly condemns homosexuality. However I will not use any more of my time on this issue because the majority of people don"t find this as a good reason, and frankly, if I was an atheist, I wouldn"t either.
The biggest reason I don"t think that we should allow gay marriage is because they can"t reproduce. Now before you roll your eyes at me, allow me to ask you a question. Why does the government recognize marriage? If marriage is simply a religious concept then why bother validating it at all? The government recognizes marriage so that children can be raised in a healthy way. At least this is the primary reason, and I intend to show that it must be this way. You argue that if this were the case then we wouldn"t allow heterosexual marriages in which the couple can"t or won"t have children. However, it would be extremely difficult to regulate that. For starters, many infertile couples don"t know that they are infertile until after marriage. Also, if a couple had decided that they didn"t want children they could simply lie and say that they did want children until after marriage. In addition to that, these couples always have the option to adopt. I will explain about homosexuals adopting kids in my next point because I think that it fits that topic better. If none of those reasons are convincing, that is fine. However, allow me to explain why it makes more sense to disallow heterosexual couples who don"t want kids than to allow same-sex marriage.
To repeat myself, the reason that the government recognizes marriage is so that children can be raised in a healthy way. If this is not the case than why do they recognize marriage? If it is simply to validate a person"s way of expressing love, than the government has no business sanctioning it at all. It is of no use to them and brings no particular benefit to America. The government should drop the whole issue of marriage and stop viewing it as a legal status. If we somehow look past that argument, than we run into another problem. Why just gay marriage? What about incest, polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia, or marriage to objects? If we say that marriage has nothing to do with child rearing and is only an expression of love, then we must conclude that these things are ok as well. Why should the man who wants to marry his sister not be allowed to marry while two men are? Every argument used in support of gay marriage can be used in support of those things just mentioned. The government now has no reason to forbid such marriages because they have already concluded that marriage is simply an expression of love. I would imagine that everyone reading this would find at least a few of the things listed as being wrong. However, let"s imagine that someone believed that all of these things were right, and that anyone could marry anyone or anything. You have now just trivialized marriage to the point that it has no meaning. Marriage is of no value, is not special, and has become something that has nothing in common with true marriage except its name. I am sorry but this is the unavoidable consequence of allowing gay marriage.
On to my third point: the social argument. The media will swear up and down that homosexuals do not harm society in any way, but the truth is that it does. And guess who gets hurt the most, it"s the children! Out of necessity, these children are denied either a father or a mother. I don"t expect you to take my word for it but what about their word?

What about science"s word?

Homosexuals are also more likely to commit crimes such as pedophilia;

and murder;
Now because of these things we shouldn"t allow homosexuals to adopt kids. In addition, by legalizing gay marriage we condone pedophilia and violent murder.
My final point is that homosexuals are not born gay! (I didn"t watch the video for this one just read the article.)
The homosexual lifestyle is a choice. It has nothing to do with genetics. I know this doesn"t prove conclusively that we shouldn"t allow gay marriage, but it does lend support to that conclusion. I am also firmly convinced that homosexuals would be happier if they were to abandon their way of life.

Of course if you asked a bunch of gays if they thought they were happy being gay they would naturally say yes. However, I believe that they would say this in the same way that a porn addict says they are happy watching porn. The porn satisfies them and gives them momentary pleasure but it doesn"t make them happy. It is nearly impossible for the person to recognize the damage porn is causing and even if they did, they would not even be able to comprehend the possibility of them quitting. However, they would actually be happier if they quit. I believe this is why the bible condemns homosexuality. God is not just some kill-joy who wants to ruin our fun. God gives us rules so that we can be truly happy. Therefore, since God says not to be a part of sexual activity, there must be something in it that causes unhappiness.
So, The Bible condemns homosexuality. In addition, marriage must be about child rearing otherwise it ceases to be marriage and the government shouldn"t be involved anyway. Allowing gay marriage condones pedophilia, violence, and is not an ideal situation for a child. And homosexuals are not born gay. As a result of this they would be happier if they were to turn from participating in homosexual acts.
Debate Round No. 2


As my next part of the debate I would like to demonstrate how a few points in my opponents are wrong and why they can be misinterpreted this way.

1. You describe marriage as just an expression of love between two people and why yes it is seen as an expression of love, this is not the lonely meaning of marriage. Marriage is seen as a social, ritual, and legal union/contract between two people. It establishes rights and obligations between them and connects them as family. For instance two people who are not marries and are not family can't adopt kids, allowing your other to be able to receive benefits from you (Social Security, Medicare, military or veterans, public assistance, etc.), allows them to be on the same health plan, it would have them fill out a different kind of tax form, etc... So while marriage is about "love" there are many of other reasons why people get married. In many ways marriage is of a value.

2. Although religion does play a part in some beliefs on marriage you, like you stated not only Christians get married. Buddhist, Atheist, Agnostics, Jewish people, Muslims, and almost every other group can get married so religion shouldn't play a part in it.

3. Even if religion (Christianity) does [plus thank you for showing text does disprove my point, showing your evidence] the fact that even if homosexuality is a sin so is lust, jealously, envy, sloth, and not believing in God. And in God's eyes are of these sins are equal to him meaning that none are worst than the other, if so then should we force everyone to believe in God? To get rid of all the porn sites and magazines? No because God gave us free will and he will let us choose how our lives are rather than dictate them. Plus just because your homosexual doesn't mean you are going to hell, if so everyone else who sin would also go (that means all of us)

4. Your point on why that marriage is all about reproduction is incorrect as I stated in my first paragraph, it is to unify two people giving them rights and obligations to each other.

5. You state that having a same-sex couple would hurt the children, but the facts and information about this is controversial. For instance which would you see is a worse life living in a foster care facility with multiple kids, no parents, and you basically all on your own or living with two same sex people who love and care and provide for you. In all honestly I rather pick the living with people who care for me. Plus you state that it hurts the children because they are denied a father or a mother, but wouldn't it hurt the child more if they are denied any parents in their life? Plus according to that logic a single mother or father shouldn't raise a kid because then they are denied the parent of the opposite sex. Lastly on this topic it is said that a lot of kids are hurt for the fact on social or education level because they have same-sex parents and if you look at the reasoning behind it most of the time though it is not the parenting behind the problem, it is the fact that people discriminate and bully the parents for their decision to be gay.

(Just so you know this link doesn't show that homosexuals commit more murders, it shows that they are more likely to get murdered because of gay bashing and other incidents)

6. Another stance I have is that you state that homosexuals are more likely to commit murders or commit pedophilia like crimes , which is not true. How you sexually identify yourself does not determine what kind of a person you are, like race, gender, social class, age, or religion doesn't determine how violent you are or how you will react in a situation. If you believe that the fact that being a homosexual makes you more likely to commit a crime how is that not the same as saying because your white your probably racist, or because your a woman you are more than likely weak. In all these instances you are discriminating against a group of people based on biases.

7. With your last paragraph it is controversial in many people eyes (for the fact some may not believe in God) and who is there to say that it is a fact they would be happier that way? Because homosexuality can be a part of who they are as a person and a part of their identity and telling them, "yeah I don't think you are actually happy being who you are so maybe if you act like everyone wants you to be then you'll really be happy". Doing things like that can cause huge problems in people's life forcing them to become something they are not so that society as a whole can be okay with it.

8. Plus lastly about your Bible passages. I agree with you that in the OLD testament that God had many times condemned homosexuality (remember in the old one). But you have to remember in the Old Testament the had a lot of restrictions that don't correlate with today's world such as eating pork or shellfish, wearing make-up, cutting your hair, not being circumcised, or working on the Sabbath. So should we discourage this also? No and the reason behind this because in Hebrews 8:13 it says, the old law is obsolete and aging and in Roman 10:4 says that Christ is the end of the old law meaning all laws in the Old Testament should all be set as laws that we have to follow because if they are then we all have to rethink our lives. And even looking at some laws in the New Testament, women can't speak in church, slaves can be disobedient, and men and women can't get a divorce and if they do they can't remarry. If you believe that because the bible condemns homosexuality, remember the bible condemns these to so do you tell me you believe in all of these with all your heart?



My opponent has attempted to refute my points but none of his excuses are valid. Allow me to explain why. Please refer back to my opponent"s speech for context as I will be refuting his points in order.

1: I agree with my opponent that there are many reasons why people marry, that is not what I was trying to say. I was trying to speak from the government"s view point. My argument is as follows: The government should not be involved in anything that is not of benefit to them. If marriage is not about raising children then marriage is not of benefit to the government. Therefore if marriage is not about raising children then the government should not be involved in it. If my opponent cannot explain why the government should recognize gay marriage then I should win this debate. Let it be known that my opponent did not even address why incest, polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia, or marriage to objects is different from homosexuality. If we accept homosexuality then we must accept those things.

2: I don"t believe I said anything about marriage only being religious. I don"t really understand how this point pertains to the debate at all.

3: I agree that homosexual conduct is not any different from lust or jealousy, but that doesn"t mean we should allow it. It also isn"t any different from murder but the government shouldn"t allow murder. On the other hand, I never said that just because you are a homosexual you are going to hell. I also don"t believe that to be true. If a homosexual is relying on Jesus to save him from his sins (including his homosexual conduct) than he will go to heaven. End of story.

4: Marriage must be about reproduction as I have already shown.

5: You say that it is better to be raised in a homosexual couple"s house than a foster care facility. First of all, this is an unsubstantiated claim with no evidence or research to back it up. Second of all this is simply not true.
Since you claim that this is a controversial issue then you should be able to have some research to back up your claims.

6: You say "[sexual identity] like race, gender, social class, age, or religion doesn't determine how violent you are or how you will react in a situation." This is another claim that you have no evidence to back up. How are the voters supposed to know that you aren"t making these things up? However, thinking that homosexuals commit more crimes is not even close to the same thing as racism. First of all racism, and the other things you mentioned besides religion are things that you can"t change about yourself. If I think you are inferior to me simply because you are an African American then that is wrong. But with homosexuals I don"t think that they are inferior to me nor do I hate them. Homosexuals also can choose to be different since they are not born that way (since you never addressed that issue that point stands) I merely think that the homosexual lifestyle is wrong. In addition it is a fact that homosexuals commit more crimes then heterosexuals.

7: First of all, I don"t think that we should force homosexuals to become heterosexual as you seem to assume. I just don"t think that we should allow them to marry. In addition, it has been shown that gays are less happy then heterosexuals. I gave you one source for that already but here"s another one.

8: Finally, about my scriptures that I used, yes it is true that SOME of the laws in the Old Testament are now invalid. However, not all of them are, otherwise you shall not steal, and you shall not murder would automatically be invalid. Also, you may not have noticed but two of the verses I quoted were from the New Testament.

So far you have only made unsubstantiated claims and completely disregarded the research that I have provided. Thank you! (to my opponent and to the judges)
Debate Round No. 3


Okay to my opponent who has said none of my points are valid, didn't use any real valid points except my lack of evidence which I will show right now

1. My opponent states that marriage is all about raising a child while this may be believed this is incorrect to many degrees. Marriage is not all about raising a child because as of late, less and less married couples and people in general are having kids. According to Census about 47.6% of women from 15 to 44 years of age never had children as of 2012( Plus marriage is a government issue because with marriage (what you failed to look at and accept) that marriage is a legal connection between two people giving them rights and obligations and benefit such as Tax Benefits (Marital tax deduction and being able to fill out taxes jointly), Financial Benefits (Social Security, Prenuptial Agreements, and IRA), Legal Benefits (Legal Decision-Making and Inheritance), And Health/Employment (Health Insurance and Leave). ( Marriage also protects one and other with testimony how a spouse can't be forced to testify against one another. ( With this info it shows that marriage is not only about making kids, it is used to protect and allow your spouse rights and privileges.
Plus in the other cases you brought up marriage would have no use for these individuals. Incest: if both parties are already family then they already have all the same right that a married couple would have so at that point marriage would just be used as a title nothing more. Bestiality and Object: because the opposing party is not something that can actually be communicated with again, marriage would be denounced to just a title nothing more. Pedophilia: it is the same stance where kids can't get married because they are believed not to have the knowledge what it actually means to be married and because in itself pedophilia is a crime. Lastly polygamy, depending on where you're from people who practice this do get married so that point is not relevant. Meaning accepting homosexuality doesn't mean accepting everything.

2. I brought up the point on it being religious because a lot of your argument had to do with religion.

3. And just so you know I never said that you believed that homosexuals should go to hell, like 2. I brought it up because a lot of your argument had to do with religion. And are you really comparing homosexuality to being a murder? How is loving someone that is the same gender as you similar to killing someone?

4. As my first point shows the point of marriage is not to procreate and these post agree with that claim

5. To your claim that I didn't show evidence this one is based on first hand experience which is evidence in itself. You are telling me that you rather live in a foster care facility where you with multiple other people who may or may not care about you rather than live in a house with two people who want to take care of you? Plus your claim said that they shouldn't adopt because then they wouldn't have a mother or a father figure, but using that logic single parents should adopt or have kids because then we would be in the exact same predicament.

6. According to many studies ( and ( and ( . These all show that Homosexuality is not a choice but you are born that way and even animals in nature can exhibit homosexual behaviors. So with this hating on them is exactly like being racist to African American or sexist to women or discriminating against atheist (I am not saying you are hating them) and with research it shows that the LGBT community makes up only about 3.8 % of the entire US population ( ( and only 1.7% are gay or lesbian and 1.8 are bisexual. So please explain to me how less than 5% of the population commits more crimes than the other 90%+ (the other 5% goes to pansexual, asexual, etc...). Plus according to one of the sites you used it even references that because homosexuals have such a small representation that it's hard to get accurate statistics based on them. It's like saying this. There are 100 kids in a room 90 of them are straight and 10 are gay/lesbian. 45 of straight kids pass and 4 of the gay/lesbians pass. Because the straight people got a 50 % passing rate and the others only had a 40% passing rate does that mean gay people are dumber than straight people? No, the reason they could have had a lower passing rate is because they had less representation in the class meaning they had less of a chance to do so.

7. According to studies a lot of time gays are not happy because they are more likely to be subjected to mistreatment or to hate. Plus some studies say that uncloseted gays were less likely to be depressed and had less physiological problems that heterosexual men. ( ( ( According to these sites that refute your point saying gay people are more likely to be happy and less likely to be depressed than heterosexuals.

8. I know that some laws in the Old Testament are invalid and some are still valid, but who are we to choose which is which. Plus I did notice that two of the verses were in the old Testament and I brought that up, but I also said in the new Testament it says its a sin for women to speak in church and for slaves to disobey and be disobedience, so do you believe that these two verses in the New Testament should be portrayed in life? And if you bring up that these were written because of the time frame, then why can't I say the same thing about the verses on homosexuality. We cannot pick and choose what laws and what commandments that we think should be used and what shouldn't. If we do that the Bible itself becomes irrelevant because then everyone would use it just to push political gains. In other words unless you believe that women should not speak in church and places that still have slavery that the slaves should obey and not be disobedient then the verses used would just be used in hypocrisy.

With this coming to a close I would like to thank my opponent for challenging me and bring this beliefs and thoughts to this debate. I hope that this last post (with evidence) helps prove my claims and that the research I provide not only helps you, but the judges look at the situation in another light. I would again like to thank you and say I look forward to see your last response and how this debate comes to a close.


Ok, let"s go through what my opponent said in his last speech.
1: I have no idea if my opponent is deliberately trying to avoid the question or if he entirely misunderstands me. He says that marriage gives a couple tax benefits, financial benefits, health employment, etc. and that this is why marriage is recognized. WHAT???? My opponent has tried to take the benefits of marriage to justify marriage itself. This answers why people get married but not why marriage is there in the first place. I"m asking (and have been asking this entire debate) why do we recognize marriage at all? My opponent replies that it is because of certain legal benefits. Well why do we give out those benefits if there is no advantage to marriage? If marriage is about reproduction then it makes sense because the government would want to promote a healthy environment for kids. However if it is not about raising kids then there is no reason for the government to give those benefits to married couples. My opponent has given no reason for marriage to be recognized at all. Marriage has to be about reproduction or else there is no reason for marriage at all. Again, since my opponent has not answered why the government should recognize marriage there is no reason to lend him your vote. Either marriage is to promote child rearing in which case gays should not be allowed to marry because they can"t have children, or marriage is not about anything and should not exist at all. Either way, I am still right. In addition, I also stated earlier that it is nearly impossible to tell whether a heterosexual is able/wants to have kids before they get married. As a result just because less married people are having children it would be impossible to regulate.
2: I don"t need to say anything about this I don"t think
3: This point is confusing to me. Who brought up the whole hell thing anyway? And why are we talking about it? This point seemed to surface out of nowhere neither of us said that homosexuals are going to hell. About comparing homosexuality with murder, here"s what you said in round three. "even if homosexuality is a sin so is lust, jealously, envy, sloth, and not believing in God." My point was then to say that you are correct by saying sin is sin and no sin is worse than the other. However, I then added that just because this is true, it does not follow that we should then allow homosexuality. I used murder as an example to say that some sins need to be regulated against.
4: For your first link, this website still doesn"t give a reason for marriage. It gives a benefit, namely the benefit of getting to know the other person better. However, the couple could have gotten to know each other better by cohabiting instead of marrying. This fails to show why marriage should be recognized at all.
For you second link it again does not give a reason why marriage should be recognized. Instead it tries to show why it can"t be about having children. It does so by saying that non-married people and animals have children. I don"t really understand why that proves anything. I say that the government recognizes marriage in order to promote a healthy environment for children. It has been shown that children with married parents fare better than others. (
As for your third link, it claims that reproduction can"t be the main reason otherwise we wouldn"t allow 55 year olds to marry. It then claims that it must be about love between two people. Honestly, I have no idea why the government DOES allow people 55 years old to marry. Maybe it is because we have religious roots. The argument makes sense if you look at it from a religious standpoint. Marriage is set up by God to promote love and childbearing among other things. However if you look at it from an atheists point of view then cohabiting makes just as much sense. So, either you look at it from a religious viewpoint that says that homosexuality is wrong, in which case I have already won the debate; or you look at it from an atheist"s viewpoint that sees no reason for marriage to be recognized. Again, no matter which route you choose, I should win the debate.
5: For me at least that would depend on the situation. If I am going to be placed in a home where I am sexually abused, something that happens often with homosexual"s kids then no I would not want to be placed there. I would rather stay in foster care. Since I have already shown this fact and demonstrated that kids are NOT happy without a father or a mother. We should at least wait on gay adoption/marriage until we can discover what the truth is concerning this issue, by means of research.
6: First of all, I only meant to say that homosexuals cause more crime per capita not more crime than everyone else. I am sorry for the confusion. It is true that they have a small sample size but that does not necessarily mean that the studies are wrong. Until we can prove otherwise, it makes sense to assume that the science is correct. Thank you for giving sources this time. =514; I admit that this issue is controversial but I still believe it to be true.
7: Again I admit that this issue is controversial but the government should take some time and research it instead of just dismissing it.
8: I sincerely apologize for not addressing the issue about laws in the New Testament in my last speech but I read your speech wrong and thought it said old as opposed to new. For the record, I don"t think it is right for slaves to disobey their masters. I also don"t think it is right for women to teach in church, but those are completely unrelated issues. Just know that I believe both of those things to be true so that argument does not pertain to this debate.
I thank my opponent for the debate. I had fun and learned a few things on the way. I hope that all of my arguments were convincing. I also hope that the judges will see that regardless of the other points, I must be declared the winner of this debate because my opponent gave no reason for marriage to exist at all. Thanks again!
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by John_C_1812 1 year ago
It"s not a religious issue. Never really was. It can be made into a religious issue.
Gay Marriage directs a witness to describe a sexual expectation. Gay being both an accusation of sexual choice, and a confession of sexual choice. Marriage is not verbally described Heterosexual Marriage it is only limited to a man and a woman by precedent.
Either way Gay has no place on any official document of any kind. Where any argument might be incriminating to discrimination, it is suggesting a witness needs some understanding to the prevision of sex. Intercourse does not need to be described to a witness on any official document.
The Government does have a right to promote marriage by incentive Under the United States Constitution. Two reasons being. First it is a way for a Nation to promote native born citizens of the country. Second by basic separation of couples it provides a legal way to help monitor immigration fraud.
Posted by CapainAfrica99 2 years ago
I agree, even though the Pope statement would help me in the debate, the fact that it as not brought up by either of us makes it an irrelevant point in this debate. Other than that even if you take the points, in all technicalities (except the one that matters) I'm winning aha :p But again I really liked this debate and hope we come in conflict again :p
Posted by dmessy 2 years ago
Yeah I don't know. It seemed like he meant to vote for you but got the sides mixed up. I'll take the points though. On the other hand his reasoning about the pope is completely invalid because we didn't talk about that at all
Posted by CapainAfrica99 2 years ago
I'm so confused the guy who voted, voted for con but supported my side and agreed with my side? okay then aha.
Posted by CapainAfrica99 2 years ago
I want to thank you for the debate and in my last argument I would have added more but I finished off with 3 words left aha, well at this point it's just up to the voters now.
Posted by dmessy 2 years ago
I wanted to say "thank you for the challenge and good luck in the rest of the debate." but I only had 5 characters left at the end of my speech. lol
Posted by occluded 2 years ago
It should be mentioned that it cannot be demonstrated that allowing gay people the right to marry does not directly harm heterosexuals at all.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by sgoodall 2 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: Both sides did a good job. However, pro (against gay marriage) did not have a strong enough argument. Especially, considering that the Pope of the Catholic Church has told people to move and let people love whoever they want. I as a straight catholic, have no problem with gay marriage and see the verses in the Bible as being the best of its time but no longer completely relevant.