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

Is gay marriage wrong?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 2/26/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 687 times Debate No: 46776
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)




No, it isn't. I'm not gay myself (or even religious) but to deny the right to have a gay marriage is to deny the right to persue happiness, which is protected by the Constitution of the United States of America.


I totally endorse gay relationships of any sex. Just as I endorse heterosexual relationships. Mutual consent and criminal law are the necessary borders. Hence pedophiliac advances towards children are not tolerable. But apart from that: whatever makes people happy!

But marriage as a concept is wrong, and that must include gay marriage. I argue that marriage should be abolished, which necessarily then includes gay marriage, but not in a discriminatory way.

Marriage can not be as easily undone as it is contracted. A lengthy and expensive, emotionally painful process called "divorce" is forced upon people who only got married because of their common "pursuit of happiness". A divorce does not make people happy, it only makes a break-up even more painful.

If gay marriage were allowed, this would also happen to gay couples. Granted, not all of them will break up, but enough couples do. A break-up is in many cases hard enough on people. But with a divorce as an obligatory hurdle, it only becomes worse.

Marriage is not something in favour of the pursuit of happiness unless some day divorces are made far easier. But as the resolution stands, changing the rules of marriage is not part of this debate, so for the time being divorce is a bad thing that makes people unhappy.
Marriage comes with the danger of divorce and the respective pain and financial loss.
This goes for gay marriage, too.

So I oppose gay marriage, as I oppose any other marriage!

Be happy! Be free to go separate ways! Be gay!
Debate Round No. 1


I do have to agree with you on certain aspects of your argument there, however, it is based on the fact that if we allow gays to be married, they will be subject to divorce. This is flawed. Why? It is the responsibility of a couple to commit to something like marriage, not the state, and they like any other couple should go in knowing that they may have to divorce at some point. Should divorces be made easier? Yes. I completely agree with you in that aspect. They are a painful burden on people, and should be made as much less stressful on people as possible. However, It is likely that marriages are going to be around for a very, very long time, even if Christianity is removed from the stage. Taking the right from gays to marry while giving it to hetero sexual people it unjust, even if hetero sexual people make the majority. Therefor, (especially if you support all relationships as you have clearly stated) gays should be allowed to marry. There is nothing wrong with it in any sense, and I will continue to fight for universal rights.


I agree there is a clash of interests here: limiting freedom of choice and keeping people safe.

We both agree that divorce is harmful in the way it is resolved so far - by the law.

The problem is that the demand for marriage among gay people is high only because they are denied it. Embittered about being left out by a Christian lobby, the gay community demands their right to be married. And they have any right to do so.

Why do they not - like many heterosexual couples - live together in a relationship without marriage and be happy? Why is a certificate of marriage so important? Is this not a sign of insecurity and immaturity, regarding the spite of getting married because it's not legalized?

If people love each other, there are many ways of showing this publicly and committing to a long-term-relationship.

Marriage means risk of unnecessary intense pain, but the gay community seems to be unaware of this. This may be due to the fact that they lack the experience, because they have never been married. It may in part, however, be that their desire for justice blinds them in that respect.

The moral conflict for the law is this: shall the law allow people to get themselves hurt because they believe they are denied a basic human right? Or would it be better to protect them from a harm they do not see coming?

We have done the same thing with drugs. Drugs promise relief and joy, but they also bring the risk of severe after-effects and trauma. Hence they are forbidden. They are allowed for medical purposes, and to some extent for religious purposes.

This procedure seems reasonable.

If we apply it to marriage, then it does not seem totally unreasonable to prevent people who don't know what risk they are taking from hazard by abolishing the concept of marriage as a whole. Nobody gets left out, nobody suffers from discrimination: no new marriages should be contracted, all couples who are not happy with their marriage anymore should get a free annulment, and no gay person will ever have to complain again. Couples living together should all get the same fiscal benefits, and churches can handle their religiously motivated rites in any way they please. Problems solved.

Again, I do NOT propose to leave things as they are and deny the gay community the right to be treated equally. I propose to no longer legally recognize marriages.

Surely, since for a transition period contracted marriages will remain intact while new ones will no longer be legally recognized, nobody will be too unhappy. You argue that the pursuit of happiness should be the driving force behind gay marriage. I say that abandoning marriage will make the most people happy, and that the introduction of additional - gay - marriages will make a considerable amount of gay couples UNHAPPY once they realize they only got married to spite a law they considered unjust.

Legalizing gay marriage will not solve any problems. It will only give a truly wronged minority the short-lived triumph of equality - until they realize that they are trapped with the equal pains of divorce, which they did not intend.

Now, one may surely argue that the gay community would like to reserve for themselves the right to decide whether they want to take the risk of divorce or not, because others are allowed that choice, too.
It's true. But we also deny people the right to decide whether they work with a buzz-saw while drunk. Even though nobody else will get hurt, the law clearly forbids us to work with hazardous equipment while intoxicated/under the influence. Preventing people from harm is one of the foremost duties of the state. Sometimes, even against their will, out of better judgement.

I see no reason to allow marriage outside of religion at all. What point is it to tie two people together for nothing? The relevant parts can be handled by civil law: joint property, custody for children, alimentation for a person who does household work for you. In most countries with strict laws on marriage, the financially or socially weaker part (mostly the woman) has at some time been subject to suppression, leading to the "United Nations Convention on Consent to Marriage, Minimum Age for Marriage, and Registration of Marriages(1962)[3] or the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women(1979)" (from: ).
Still there are nations that refuse to sign these declarations. This means marriage poses a big problem worldwide, otherwise these declarations would not be necessary, would they?

We should abolish this and treat people as individuals with exactly the same rights.
Do not legalize gay marriage, annul marriage for all genders. It would be the right thing to do.
Debate Round No. 2


And I completely agree with you. Marriages shouldn't be legally recognized for anyone, gay or not. But I'm not arguing for that. Why? It's extremely unlikely to happen, especially on a nation wide scale. Christianity, unfortunately, is just embedded too deeply in our society for that to happen any time within the foreseeable future. I am arguing that gays should be able to get married. And as for your argument in general? Well, your argument pushed me into what I like to call "the undecided zone". I'll research this more to see if that helps in my decision making. After all, I'm not here to necessarily win, but to see if my tactics and overall strategy, which are undeveloped as I am new to this so far, work. But, still. There is a problem with your argument. Your saying that one reason we shouldn't is because we should keep gays safe from the risk of divorce. Well... We aren't forcing them to marry in the first place. By legalizing this, we simply would be opening a new path for them for follow in the pursuit of happiness. If that's the path they choose, so be it. That shouldn't be our decision to make, right or wrong. And as for this solving things? Well... The relatively simple act of legalizing this nationwide would at least get rid of one subject in debate, at least for the most part, giving us more time to argue points on more crucial events happening. That's a plus, right? I say we just legalize this and get it over with. The gay community will cheer for a while, there will be a few divorces, and a few happier people. The nation as a whole would be unaffected, and a new path for gays to follow would be open, allowing them another option in life. The only significant negative will be the initial impact on the religious communities, but that'll settle soon enough. Everything would be just a bit better for everyone. Maybe not much, but a bit. And signing a few documents would be well worth it. Again, if you have a counter argument, please post it. This is the last round.


Well, even if I'm dipping a bit into the semantics here: The question whether gay marriage is WRONG - which was your resolution - may not depend on the probability of the alternative happening anytime soon.
We should strive towards the right end, not shy away from the good fight towards the right ends.
If we agree that marriage should be abolished, we must move towards that, not away from it by first legalizing gay marriage and then taking it away again. That would be inconsequential and would thus harm the general position that marriage is wrong altogether.

I am glad you take this debate as a chance to widen your horizon. I surely didn't enter a debate AGAINST gay marriage for the prospect of winning this. I know that most probably the hate will be directed against my position. But that's not what we came here for. This is an exchange of opinions above all else.

You say we aren't forcing the gay community into marriage by legalizing it. That is true, but yet we also do not legalize drunk driving or working with hazardous materials under the influence. Nobody FORCES people to get drunk and then sit behind the wheel. It's their ill decision-making that has the law worried. We need to protect people from harm they do not see coming. Sure, the gay community is now saying: "We'd rather be unhappy with a divorce than be denied our right of equality!" But do they really know what they are wishing for here? None of them has likely been through a divorce. A few of them who recognized their sexual orientation late, maybe, divorced their wives. But the joy of finding themselves dampened the divorce pain. But if the gay marriage fails just as miserably: why should we let them run into this instead of steadily working towards the annulment of marriage?

Legalizing something inherently wrong - and I believe any kind of marriage is wrong - just for the sake of "getting it over with" seems morally questionable to me. By that account, we should legalize anything if enough people demand it. That would be a kind of anarchy, and the need for laws - and hence legalization - would stop altogether. Why make laws in the first place if we abolish them whenever a group demands it?
If a group of people demanded the eviction of all immigrants, would we "get that over with", too?
You say the legalization of gay marriage leads to more happiness, yet you acknowledge how deeply conservative Christianity is rooted in society - you will make all of those Christians very unhappy. There would be a public outcry, because to those people it would be a sacrilege. You may not deny one group happiness in favour of another.

If two children quarrel about a toy that exists only once, what do you do? You try to find a fair solution by offering each a substitute. If they don't like that and keep fighting, you remove the object of desire. Then both will get over it. It isn't always possible to find Solomon's wisdom in everything. In the case of marriage, a compromise cannot be found, and there is no "right" position.
It's not like any group has a natural right to marriage.
Some animal species stay together as couples for a lifetime without legal recognition, and they are happy. The same goes for humans. Marriage is the result of fear: the fear of loss. By signing these papers, people wish to preserve their relationship forever. But nothing is forever. It's silly to argue about this illusion of eternity. Society gains nothing from it.
If people want to express their love, let them wear rings, let them speak their vows: by all means, whatever makes them happy. Why do we need a legal penalty for breaking these vows? Will people not be unhappy enough knowing that their dream of eternal love shattered - if that happens?

I say legalizing gay marriage would be a step in the wrong direction. If the religiously motivated haters of gay couples want to cling to their exclusive fiscal advantages of marriage, take those away, because greed is not something a society should endorse. But their religious feelings are a different thing. And we gladly do have a discernment between civil and religious marriage. Take the civil marriage away, allow the religious people their rites without legal recognition and let the religious gay couples work this out within their parishes. It's a religious matter then, and nobody must interfere.

I thank you for this debate. It most certainly was something different!
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by The_Scapegoat_bleats 2 years ago
I return the compliment on this debate. You did a really good job. Please keep it up!
Posted by MrSykoCat 2 years ago
You know, I did a little bit more research on what might happen, and after carefully analyzing what you said, my bit of research and my own arguments, I can conclude that you were probably right in all of this. You put up a good fight, and I can respect that. I admit defeat in this argument, and I think I may have learned a bit or two about debate tactics and strategy in general. After all, this was my first actual debate. I wasn't exactly expecting to win. Like I said, I came here to see if my first approach would work or not against a possibly better debater than myself, not to win. Especially seeing that I wasn't completely sure what to say or what side to argue on, only about, say, 85% sure. Thank you for the debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by vekoma123 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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm supportive of same-sex marriage and do not think it is wrong, but I do feel that the status of 'marriage' is a bit overrated after reading Pro's arguments.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Round 3 saw Con essentially concede that marriage itself shouldn't exist, and Pro extended that because marriage shouldn't exist, gay marriage shouldn't either. I think in light of this, Pro wins arguments. Pro's brief use of his source was probably not quite good enough for 2 points in sources, so I've awarded 1 point.