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

Marriage is a fundamental right that should be given to everyone no matter their sexual orientation

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: 8/30/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 599 times Debate No: 37158
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




First round for myself is to explain the parameters of the debate. This first round I will let the Con make all of his objections to gay marriage. I will then refute all of his arguments to the best of my abilities. The guidelines are simple if you wish to debate with your religion I don't care but know there is to be no religious discrimination nor should you aggressively insult myself or any other advocates for gay rights.

Most importantly I'm not doing this debate because I want to get a win or whatever but I want people to understand that being gay is not a choice and that all they want is the thing that most people spend their entire life cherishing and searching for, and we are denying their right to express it. I am not gay or bi it's personally not my style but I have respect for the people who are and wish that we could all learn to accept and live with people's differences and extend even further than that and give them, not special rights, but the rights in which we are denying them.

Thank you to the contender, whomever it may be, for accepting this debate and I look forward for it to be lively and enjoyable. I would honestly prefer someone who has debated this category before but none the less I would welcome someone who's never debated this category before.

Also to make it perfectly clear so there is no mistakes in this debate or I get an accidentally faulty con, the one who accepts this debate will either be trying to prove that being a homosexual is not a choice and from there debating we shouldn't give them the right to marriage or just ultimately focus on America should not support the marriage of homosexuals and deny their right too wedlock.


I would first like to thank pro for letting me participate in this debate. From my understanding this debate is about the morals of being gay in places like or in America.

My goal in this debate as con will be to make my position clearly asserted. As, I don't support government intervention in the personal lives of its civilians, I do believe that my social idealistic and libertarian beliefs are faulty in the degree that things such as major health issues such as Aid's, HIV may be intertwined with regulate government structure.

To this weak gain on my stance on the position of gay marriage. I personally feel that marriage isn't a productive means to be governmentally regulated in a contemporary society. In my opinion the sexual status of marriage and marriage per se is a not important because it doesnt play a major role in the social and cultural structure of America anymore. For instance, According to a recent report by National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia and the Center for Marriage and Families at the Institute for American Values,

"the divorce rate in America is double the rate of what it was in 1960, though it has declined somewhat since hitting an all-time high in 1980. This decline suggests a higher rate of marital stability, due to both a higher age of first marriage as well as the reservation of marriage for the economically stable." (source:

Moreover, Statistics show that there are more important issues that should be on the minds of american then government intervention of polar marriages such as one in the gay community. Marriage in my opinion should be abolished from state and federal intervention, due to a lack of relevance to America as a progressive society. Many studies can show that the lack of stability and support in the home, of children from divorced parents experience significant decrease in academic success, physical health, and future stability in their own relationships. If anything should be considered, it should be that these children are the future of America. The fact that they choose or are born homosexual, pansexual, heterosexual, ditto per se sexual should not be of major or any concern to overseers such as the government. It seems that there is many inequalities that come along with marriage itself, this is why I think marriage is useless to have regulate by any overseer.

Another point is that, faith itself on the decline. Im not trying to bash any religion or religious association, but, I feel this is relevant to this debate because homophobia and poli-socio policies against sexual equality has been rooted from politicians and people of power of communitys of faith (in my opinion). To bring my statement to more relevance; many studies show how unproductive marriage is to our contemporary society, According to an analysis from released survey data by researchers from the University of California, Berkeley, and Duke University, Religious affiliation in the United States is at its lowest point since it began to be tracked in the 1930s (source: I raise this point because the ideal of marriage, more specifically the ideal of traditional heterosexual marriage in america is very relevant to faith in America.

In more simple terms of logic, if faith is on the decline and so is marriage rate, wouldn't the regulation of gay marriage be of extreme irrelevance to societal progression. For one, the people who have faith in america may feel that being homosexual is immoral or fundamentally against there views. But, isnt it something of lesser concern to people who are gay and have faith. Even if we can prove that being gay is a choice, then we should consider how much it matters to a the future of a mostly faithless America. Thus, America should have a apathetic nature towards the ideas of wedlock. The fact is, wedlock wither gay or heterosexual is becoming useless and shouldn't regulate on any scale to any degree.
Debate Round No. 1


alevan forfeited this round.

Con forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


alevan forfeited this round.

Con forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


alevan forfeited this round.

Con forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


alevan forfeited this round.

Con forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by CriticalThinkingMachine 4 years ago
Marriage IS given to everyone regardless of their sexual orientation.

In states where gay marriage is illegal, gay people still have the right to get married. A ban on gay marriage means that two people of the same sex cannot get married (regardless of their sexual orientation). It does NOT mean that homosexuals (as individuals) cannot get married. This is a common mistake that is often made in the gay marriage debate, the belief that making gay marriage illegal means that gay people cannot get married.
Posted by 4 years ago
Just to clarify
I am not disagree with you. Instead I am trying to argue for less government intervention.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 3 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Con was the only one to actually make any arguments in this "debate." I am not sure why neither of them bothered to post anything at all in the remaining 4 rounds, but Con's arguments are unanswered here - even if they appear to be somewhat tangential to the resolution he is supposed to negate.