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

Should Gay Marriage(adoption and all other normal rights) Be Allowed In The U.S.?

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: 4/23/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,158 times Debate No: 74086
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (1)




I would love to debate on this topic and am open to anyone willing to debate.

I will start this debate by clearing up main arguments that are used by the "con" members of the gay marriage issue I will do this by going over said arguments and debunking them.

1. Well My Religion Is Against It, So Ban It.
Umm.... ever heard of this great thing called separation of church and state, here let me quote it for you.
Establishment Clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Do you know what this means? Yes, you can be a Christian or a Muslim or a Buddhist and practice your religion but you CANNOT (or the government cannot) makes laws based off of this religion. Do you know what that means? Your religion in this case, is in fact, irrelevant.

2. Well they cant have kids marriage
One, this is irrelevant, people have kids out of marriage all the time, two they can adopt or use a surrogate, three wait... if people who cant have kids shouldn't get married, shouldn't you argue against marriage with infertile couples, old people that cannot longer give birth, and couples who just don't want to have kids? Just gay people because they're icky? Oh.

3.Marriage has been around thousands of years! Why redefine it?
Just so you know, marriage has been redefined ALL THROUGHOUT HISTORY.
Because blacks can marry whites, divorce is legal and not thought as a MAJOR scandal. Read for more info.

4. Gay Marriage would Tear Apart Society!
Really? Name one society or empire that was DIRECTLY torn apart by homosexual marriage. One.

5. (probably the worst) Gays Have HIV!!!!!!!!
*sigh* why would getting married make gays have any less sex? I mean...just...what? This makes no sense.

6.Gay parents shouldn't adopt because you need both masculine and feminine!
Well you know while we're at it lets ban single mothers and fathers from raising children too, because as you know those people raised by single parents such as Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, George Washington (who's father died when he was 11), and Thomas Jefferson (whos father died when he was 14). Those people were just, absolutely horrible.

Ok now that we have that out of the way let me explain why this should be legalized.

Well it provides equal rights to literally thousands of Americans who cant get married.
It helps give children loving homes in adoption centers.
There is no real reason not to let people do what thousands of people, ADULTS want to consent to.

In conclusion, almost all major arguments anti-gay marriage activists make are easily disproven, and gay marriage is another step in equal rights for all people in The United States of America.


Ok, I don't disagree with any of your points. There is only one major issue in the way of me accepting it. Legalizing gay marriage is a slippery slope. If nobody can define what marriage really is, then what is to stop me from marrying a direct family member? Or an animal even?
A common argument stated by the pro-gay marriage community is that 'love is love.' Using this to define marriage is VERY loose and people will take advantage of it. If love is love, then why can't I marry myself? Your whole argument falls apart.
Debate Round No. 1


The slippery slope argument, is the one of the most horrible argument ever used.

The standard is in fact consenting adults that pose no hazardous situations.

Bestiality- You could never know if an animal consented to marriage therefore it is impossible to legalize marriage for an animal

Incest- Inbreeding causes lots of genetic problems to occur therefore is hazardous

Polygamy- Unless somebody is marrying like 300 people to get tax cuts then Polygamy is completely fine

Pedophilia- A child is to young to truly know if she consents therefore Pedophilia also falls away

This provides very tight standards to marriage and with it you argument falls away completely.
The slippery slope argument is wrong, it makes unrealistic claims, and doesn't look at any standards, it has been thoroughly disproven.

And I do wait to her what you come up with next time. :)


I honestly do not care what people do with one another in their own home. My opposition is to the fact that gay marriage should be made legal on a national scale. It should definitely be up to each state to decide for itself.
One of your rebuttal points, "Incest- Inbreeding causes lots of genetic problems to occur therefore is hazardous" really contradicts your views. I hate to get into the nitty-gritty details, but homosexual sex is REALLY harmful for the body.
Would you say homosexuality is supported by nature? No. Humans are not anatomically built to reproduce through homosexuality. How are we expected to evolve in a good direction with these type of actions? It is not natural, and is very harmful to the body. If you really want me to, I can go into further detail but I would rather not because it is pretty gnarly.
Debate Round No. 2


Actually, it really doesn't, well no more than a man and a woman doing the exact same acts that is, but I notice that you are not against a man and a woman having anal or oral. That argument falls apart. Unless of course now you are trying to tell everyone what type of sex they can have, in which case you are falling into a theocratic state of government, or oligarchy, or dictatorship, or monarchy, but defiantly not democracy or republic which seems to be what you conservatives always love to stand up for. Also, why should it be up to the state? We've seen what happens first hand when it is . Lets zoom back to the middle 1900's where the state tried to tell African American people who they could marry, didn't exactly turn out well did it? No not at all because it was violating the rights of others. Also, you talk about not caring about what people do in their "private life" please explain to me how homosexuals being able to adopt or marry does affect your life and is not included in said "private life". And would I say Homosexuality is natural? Why you bet I would. Natural, occurring in nature, which it does, in over 2000 species. Homosexuality is by definition natural. Again, the fact whether they can produce kids in irrelevant as heterosexual elderly people and infertile couples cannot produce children but their rights are not infringed on.

Which leads me to conclude again that your arguments are well, wrong. Just factually incorrect.


I will give you this: you are much better at arguing than most of the other people I have argued against on this site. I want to thank you for putting up some real arguments rather than BS ones that I don't even want to reply to.

However, in response to some of your claims: Like I said, I don't care what people do in their own homes. That does not however, mean I think that they should receive legal recognition and benefits nation-wide. You just compared the gay rights movement to that of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's. First of all, sexual behavior and race are essentially different realities. A man and a woman wanting to marry may be different in their characteristics: one may be black, the other white; one rich, the other poor; or one tall, the other short. None of these differences are insurmountable obstacles to marriage. The two individuals are still man and woman, and thus the requirements of nature are respected. Same-sex "marriage" opposes nature. Two individuals of the same sex, regardless of their race, wealth, stature, erudition or fame, will never be able to produce children because of an insurmountable biological impossibility.

Secondly, inherited and unchangeable racial traits cannot be compared with non-genetic and changeable behavior. There is simply no analogy between the interracial marriage of a man and a woman and the "marriage" between two individuals of the same sex.

I would also like to have a link to a list of those 200 species in nature that can homosexually reproduce and create offspring.

A final point is it is in the child"s best interests that he be raised under the influence of his natural father and mother. This rule is confirmed by the evident difficulties faced by the many children who are orphans or are raised by a single parent, a relative, or a foster parent. The unfortunate situation of these children will be the norm for all children of a same-sex marriage. A child of a same-sex marriage will always be deprived of either his natural mother or father. He will necessarily be raised by one party who has no blood relationship with him. He will always be deprived of either a mother or a father role model.
Debate Round No. 3


I love how we completely drop my point about how homosexuality is not harmful or no more than heterosexual. Anyways.

To counter your civil rights movements. Umm.. its exactly the same, EXCACTLY, as its not a changeable trait, and just because we haven't found a gene does not mean its not genetic, and if you really want to go with the whole "well until someone finds the gene it doesn't exist" we could apply that argument to lots of things, like, well God. But that's for another argument. Science supports Being Gay is not a choice. Psychologists determine that your personality is developed within 2-6 weeks of birth and is not changeable. Please read this to further educate yourself on the topic

Please, stop making the same points so I won't have to keep dredging up the same counter arguments.

NATURAL, it does not matter whether you can REPRODUCE, natural means by definition of its root word and base OCCURING IN NATURE which homosexuality does, you also never addressed my infertile couples argument, or old [people argument, leaving a lot of my claims completely unanswered meaning either you ignored them, you don't have an answer for them, or you didn't read my argument fully, all of which are very bad for your case.
For a list of the animals who display homosexuality go here:

I already answered this claim, tons of famous people grew up with only one parent and to quote who did a study on this very topic the conclusion was indeed:
""The advocates of homosexual parenting then continue, "Research done specifically on children raised by homosexual parents shows that there are no differences (or no differences that suggest any disadvantage) between them and children raised by heterosexual parents.""
Please read my arguments before reposting the same arguments, I already answered a lot of your arguments.

To Recap:

The meaning of natural means occurring in nature, which homosexuality does, therefore it is by definition natural. The ability of reproduction is irrelevant.

Homosexual parents raise children just as good as heterosexual parents, this is shown by several research studies, and proved by many famous figures with no masculine and feminine and were raised amazingly.

Homosexuality is an inherited trait, people don't choose to be gay, it is exactly like the civil rights union see my previous argument.

You dropped SEVERAL of my arguments just plain ignoring them for whatever reason.

I conclude AGAIN, the exact same thing, that your arguments are invalid, not based on evidence, and extremely weak. I conclude the exact same thing because you brought up several of the same points in a different format, which I disproved again.


Dude, you need to chill.
I don't mean to sound immature, but you are wrong, sexuality and race are very different things. Race is 100% unchangeable. Homosexuality is not natural man. I say this because the only hard evidence that we have--the biological evidence--clearly indicates that it is a disorder, in that homosexuality represents a tendency to want to use body parts for some purpose other than that for which they were designed. The penis and vagina are certainly constructed for male-female intercourse. Their complimentary shapes, the location of highly sensitive nerve endings show, without a doubt, the Divine (or evolutionary, if you will) intent.
Infertile couples is different. They are still a man and woman who could raise a child well with both a mother and father in the house. But again, you never answered this question, do you agree that on AVERAGE it is better for children to be raised with the paternal influence of a father and mother? Every study shows it is bud. So yes, there are some great single parents out there, and maybe even some great homosexual ones.
I will present this argument to you again, because you failed to address it and I think this is the crux of the issue here: How would you define 'marriage'? Your answer is vital. And please don't try to argue that 'everyone's definition of marriage can be different.' No, just don't be that guy.
Debate Round No. 4




noun: disorder


a state of confusion.
"tiresome days of mess and disorder"

synonyms: untidiness, disorderliness, mess, disarray, chaos, confusion; More
clutter, jumble;

a muddle, a shambles

"he hates disorder"

antonyms: tidiness

"the disruption of peaceful and law-abiding behavior.
"recurrent food crises led to periodic outbreaks of disorder"

synonyms: unrest, disturbance, disruption, upheaval, turmoil, mayhem, pandemonium; More
violence, fighting, rioting, lawlessness, anarchy;

breach of the peace, fracas, rumpus, ruckus, melee

"incidents of public disorder"

antonyms: order, peace

a disruption of mental functions; a disease or abnormal condition.
plural noun: disorders
"eating disorders"

synonyms: disease, infection, complaint, condition, affliction, malady, sickness, illness, ailment, infirmity, irregularity
"a blood disorder"


verb: disorder; 3rd person present: disorders; past tense: disordered; past participle: disordered; gerund or present participle: disordering

disrupt the systematic functioning or neat arrangement of.
"she went to comb her disordered hair"
synonyms: untidy, unkempt, messy, in a mess, mussed (up), mussy; More
disorganized, chaotic, confused, jumbled, muddled, shambolic
"her gray hair was disordered"
disrupt the healthy or normal functioning of.
"a patient who is mentally disordered"
synonyms: dysfunctional, disturbed, unsettled, unbalanced, upset
"a disordered digestive system"

Homosexuality does not fall into these definitions. Yes homosexuality is not race, but it is (as evidence points to) unchangeable. You are not Gay. You are not sexually attracted to men. Are you able to have sex with a man? Yes. Would you enjoy it, or like it to any extent. Probably Not. Could You Ever Like Men Sexually? No. Because you are naturally attracted to women, you are naturally heterosexual. You did not choose to be attracted to women, or to not be attracted to men, you can choose who you date, you can choose who you have sex with, yes you can choose all of those things, but you cant choose whether you are physically attracted to that person or not. That's evidence against you, actual evidence/

Its Natural. Its Natural. It Occurs In Nature, Natural, I'm not sure why you are arguing against this fact I'm so sorry but you happen to be wrong. You are FACTUALLY wrong. I really don't want to go over this again. And no, you have absolutely zero evidence supporting it is a disorder. They function just as well as anyone else. Not a disorder. If there penis was unable to create sperm, that is a disorder, if the vagina could not allow babies to be created, that's a disorder. When someone or something cannot FUNCTION PROPERLY. As for a mental disorder, no, their mental capacity is just as well, MAN.

As for your "on average" Neither is better, really neither, they are both showing the exact same amount of intelligence and everything else as masculinity and femininity is NOT ONLY AQUIRED THROUGH PARENTS. You always talk about "hard evidence" "studies show" yet you gave no quotes, no links, not studies, No Evidence.
Its like me saying "The sky is purple, hundreds of studies show it" then I say none of this evidence, none of these studies. It doesn't hold up, Don't just say stuff and expect me to just "take your word for it" like your whole "I don't want to get into how its harmful or give any evidence but its like so totally is". I quoted a study that goes DIRECTLY AGAINST YOUR POINT. This claim is disproved due to your lack of evidence and the evidence against it.

What is my definition of marriage? Marriage is something two consenting adults do. Something that someone who is old enough to marry decides with someone else that age that will not majorly effect their offspring or themselves. That is my definition of marriage. That is what I think though. Merriam Webster said it best
"A union between a man and a women or two people of the same-sex"
The definition of marriage goes directly against your point.

My final conclusion is that you have little to no evidence supporting your point scientifically and any claims you made was disproven by both my former evidence or my evidence in this final round.

Than This Debate.
And I Bid You Farewell


Ok bruh, first of all, I really didn't know anything about this topic going into the debate.
Second, you feel quite strongly on this issue as I can tell. I am sorry to have offended you with my comments. Please don't get your panties in a wad.
You have had many good points on this issue and I have certainly changed my viewpoints. However, two main things stand i the way of me accepting homosexuality.
1. The fact that based on your reasoning, everyone's definition of marriage will change. I am sure our ancestors never imagined that today's definition of marriage could include a man with a man or a woman with a woman. Today, incest, pedophilia, bestiality and polygamy may seem 'unnatural' and 'wrong' but based on your reasoning (e.g. You said "That is my definition of marriage. That is what I think though."), someone else could argue that it is 'natural' and not 'wrong.'
2. The whole gay rights movement has gone out of control. They now protest trample anyone who even disagrees with them, take the Christian bakeries for example. They exercise their Constitutional rights, and look where they end up now. The LGBT community has gone so overboard that they loose any compassion that they could have gotten from me, and I suspect many others. For a group of people campaigning for equal rights to love, they sure do radiate a lot of hate.
3. And finally.....YOUR MOM (just kidding)

So anyways, yeah thanks for a good debate, and I would be glad to debate you in a topic I am more familiar with. I realize that this one might have been rather one-sided, but please recognize that I learned information on the fly. Simple logical reasons are on my side, as well as the sheer common sense of simplicity and tradition.
Love you bruh, and... WE SHALL MEET AGAIN!!!
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by doctorcsss 3 years ago
i honestly don't care about this topic
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
RFD (Pt. 1)

Far too much of this debate was filled with red herrings.

Pro spends the vast majority of the debate eliminating arguments against her, but very little time establishing the benefits of gay marriage and adoption. Almost her entire opening round is pre-rebuttal to a bunch of possible arguments Con could levy, and she spends all of 3 sentences actually laying out the benfits of allowing gay marriage and adoption, none of which get expanded on as the debate continues. It's asserted many times that equal rights are important, but it's never made clear why, nor why a child having a loving home is beneficial. These may seem obvious, but it's very difficult to know the impact of these statements without seeing anything more on them.

In fact, both debaters suffer tremendously on impacts. Con spends most of the debate arguing against homosexuality in general rather than arguing against either of these things, and rarely impacts his arguments. Let's say I buy that legalizing gay marriage is a slippery slope " humans will marry dogs, their siblings, hell, even inanimate objects. Why should I be concerned about that future? Again, it might seem obvious, but it's unclear to me. Why should I care that the institution of marriage would expand further? If it will collapse the institution, state that. If there's a harm to that collapse, state that. I need to see it. And I should be seeing all of these arguments regarding nature, child rearing, and biology in the first round, not strung out over later rounds with similarly limited impact analysis. Again, I don't get why something being unnatural makes it harmful, or why a type of sex not occurring between complementary shapes are damaging. The only explanation I get of impacts on any of these points is on child rearing, and I'm left wholly without evidence and warrants to support those points.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
(Pt. 2)

That last bit is something where Pro certainly shines, though admittedly only in R4 and R5. I see evidence. I see (limited) warrants linking that evidence to the somewhat absent impact stories. I would really have liked to see Con argue that having gay parents is better than having no parents, which is the sole other option for many of these children. I would have liked to see points on what the denial of marriage rights to homosexuals does to them, and actually explain what some of those rights are.

But I don't get any of that. I don't get the converse either. I don't see arguments for why homosexual adoption necessarily harms children or society at large. I'm not seeing any points that examine marriage as an institution and determine what possible negative impacts can result from including homosexuals in the definition. I don't even get a basic backlash point, despite the fact that Con argues, to a very limited degree, that other groups might be upset by it. People being upset is not an impact.

So neither side is winning on the impact level. I have to add multiple points to each of your arguments in order to get it to something I can weigh, and my doing that for either of you requires that I do it for both of you, so I choose not to do it for either. Instead, I just try to see which of those eventual impacts is most likely, and that's Pro's. The evidence is there to provide some of those necessary links, and that's what wins my vote.
Posted by doctorcsss 3 years ago
Dude, did you just pull these arguments out of your pants!???
So basically you resort to the typical liberal tactic of 'well sure he was bad, but, uhhh....BUSH WAS WORSE!!'
Good job buddy. Tier one liberal thinking.
You still didn't answer the socialist side of Obama...I guess that may be because I am right...Imagine that!!
You liberals preach 'compassion' and 'fairness,' do you have any idea why Bush invaded Iraq?? He went, yes because he suspected (and had VERY good reason to suspect) that Iraq had nuclear weapons (they had enriched uranium and many centrifuges). He was wrong it turned out, but thank goodness he was!
As to your likening of Republicans to small children, Which party cries when Netanyahu comes to speak to Congress? Which party cries when a black felon is killed by a police officer defending himself? Which party relies on the votes of illegal immigrants and minorities (because they give FAT loads of handouts to them) to win elections?
When you answer those questions son, then we can have an intelligent conversation.
Posted by TheSubtleMechanic 3 years ago
Oh yes with Obama, no spending, he needs to be careful with his money, but George W Bush can spend $11.657 trillion dollars and he's fine. Yes they seem so responsible.
As for the whole "socialist Muslim" yes I do feel its an insult to be bluntly accused of something that has no evidence and that you are not, that's like if I called you a Muslim, you would be offended, because you aren't a Muslim. Its not bad to be a Muslim, but it is bad to be accused of something your not.
And if Obama was high, he was High on the same stuff when Bush agreed to invade Iraq, which was the wrong area in the first place.

Well we will invade because Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11.
Oh he wasn't?
Well then we will invade because he has weapons of mass destruction.
Oh we didn't find any? oh..
Well then we invaded because he was just a bad guy even though when we killed him the economy went to sh*t and we started a civil war. Because even though he was cruel, he kept things stable.

Yes such responsible, intelligent republicans.

And basically they didn't sign to that bill because oh they were afraid that Scary Obama and the democrats was going to trick them into signing a law that did exactly what they wanted.

Seems like a legitimate argument
Posted by Himans45 3 years ago
The ignorance of conservatives saddens me. All of pro's arguments have not been refuted, and all of con's arguments are based off of slippery slope fallacies or just plain factual incorrectness.
Posted by doctorcsss 3 years ago
I enjoy the fact that you have not responded to my comments. It makes me happy inside :D
Posted by doctorcsss 3 years ago
And why might people think that Obama is a socialism Muslim? You say that as if it is an insult to be called that, I though you libbies were all for the socialists and Musilims!! I mean, you hate on Israel when they defend themselves from terrorists, and then when Palestinians shoot rockets into Jewish schools, 'It's the Jews' fault!
And don't even get me started on Obama's Iran deal. I wonder if he was high while making that one.
Posted by doctorcsss 3 years ago
Alright, I can't just not respond to that comment because there are SOOO many things wrong with it. First of all, the shutdown thing. You know why the shutdown occurred? Because responsible Republicans were fed up with Obama and his congress's outrageous overspending. They would not vote on the budget because it was entirely irresponsible and would put our nation further into debt.
And the border laws bill: In the 1980's, President Reagan was presented with a similar bill. He signed it, and guess what happened? The bill said amnesty for illegals in our country and then tighter border security. Well the amnesty happened, but the border never did. So I don't blame them for not signing this one into law.
Posted by TheSubtleMechanic 3 years ago
Conservatives: Shut Down the government when they couldn't get a law blocked, liberals offered up a bill that gave them everything they wanted in border laws but they vetoed it because democrats voted on it, they think Obama is a socialist Muslim out to kill America, they are for invading countries which have done nothing to us directly and sometimes incorrectly, they are against abortion and gay marriage which is all about a persons individual choice, and they want to put a singular religion in school along with science which borders on a theocratic government.

Yes, they seem very open minded.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments. Sources to Pro because she's the only one who employed them. Both of you, take care with your conduct. Pro, you got a little heated in there - put some distance between yourself and the debate. Con, being a little flippant in your responses doesn't help.