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

Should gay marriage be legalized/legally recognized?

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/30/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,219 times Debate No: 13518
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (2)




In my opinion, same sex marriage should be legalized and legally accepted on a national basis. I plan to prove this not by going on the offensive, so to speak, but by going on the defensive. I will present evidence on four main points that display exactly why there is no reason to bar people of a sexual orientation different from our own to marry one another. These four main points are: The unchanging, fundamental principles of marriage from an emotional standpoint, marriage as a Legally Binding Contract, How gay marriage relates itself to the increasingly diverse society, and, lastly, recent polls and the Christian influence on this debate.
Let's begin.
Starting with the first point, marriage, gay or straight, is an emotional bond as well as a legal bond. Disallowing two people who love each other and are committed to each other to marry is unconstitutional, because, frankly, it's a very personal decision and the government would be overstepping its bounds by telling you what gender you are "allowed" to marry. Marriages still can be strong and based on faith regardless of the sexuality of those who are participating. And when you tell two people in love that they cannot bind themselves legally to one another, you are telling them that the love they share is second class to that of a hetersexual couple. It is time that America allowed gay marriage to have the highest form of social acceptance possible because we are a diverse country and one that, once you get past the political aspects and religious zealousts, really does have a fundamental goal of providing a place for people who haven't been able to be free in their sexual orientation, just as we once had for people who, centuries ago, had been kicked out of their own country based on their personal political, religious, or otherwise contrary beliefs.
Next point.
Marriage is a legally binding contract. And, considering that our country is based on the Constitution, which states that "all men are created equal in the eyes of the government," gay marriage should be allowed because it is a legal process. One can make it religious if one chooses, but it is a possibility to look at it from a stand of pure legality. A good point to make on this is the separation of church and state. The state can marry people without a priest setting foot across the proverbial doorstep. All you need is a judge, witnesses, people to marry, and a piece of paper. Not allowing gay marriage is becoming more and more an issue of "is homosexuality synonymous with immorality?", and when you trace that particular question back to the source, that idea of homosexuality as immorality originates with the right wing Christians and their Bible. The Christians, I feel compelled to add, cannot influence this debate because the government of our country needs to be kept safe from people claiming that the Bible doesn't approve of this or that. There are plenty of Jewish, atheist, Muslim, and agnostic people out there who have quite a few opinions about the Bible and those who interpret it.

I am going to take a break and wait for a challenger.


I thank my opponent for making an interesting debate and I would like to accept this challenge and debate my opponent on this subject. I will begin by refuting my opponent and then introducing my arguments.

Emotional Bond Argument:

The major flaw in this argument is that you are accepting anybody, as long they love each other, can marry. This introduces several types of marriages, for example, the marriage between brothers and sisters, mother and son, and it can lead people to want introduce even more types of marriages like marriage between pet and owner. One or two of these examples may seem a bit bizarre, but based on your reasoning, there are applicable.

Legally Binding Contract Argument:

The first thing that is wrong with this argument is your introduction of a fake quote from the constitution which you can find here [1]. Next, my opponent declares that gay marriage should be allowed because it is a legal process. However, marriage itself is a legal process, not gay marriage as gay marriage is not legal. Thus, that point isn't valid.

Christianity and Gay Marriage:

Finally, my opponent declares that the Christians should not be allowed to influence this debate. However, my opponent fails to realize that under the Bill of Rights [2] we are allowed the freedom to speak and put our own opinion into different subjects.

My Contentions:

First, I would like to state my first contention being that gay marriage is unnecessary as people get married because they love each other. Allowing Gay Marriage, and thus introducing the possibility for more types of marriages, is not needed because gay couples could still live together and their love for each other would be the same.

Next, according to an article found here [3], Dr. Byrd explained how children need both a mother and a father, not a father and a father or a mother and a mother, in order to grow into emotionally mature adults. The article also went on to say how children in homosexual households are more prone to become homosexual.

Debate Round No. 1


The pleasure is all mine, however, I would like to encourage you, my opponent, to avoid the subtle pyschological pulls that you are implementing. We are all intelligent here and can recognize a psychological ploy when we read one.

I would also point out that you did not neccessarily make any argument of your OWN, however, you picked at mine.

I apologize for not mentioning that it was an indirect summarization. As I reread my own argument, I realized that I made that very unclear. However, I do not in any way, shape, nor form, take back my statement. Once again, I apologize, my error.

I can't argue with the emotional bond, argument, simply because I ever made one. Certainly I said the phrase "emotional bond" but I also said a "legal bond" and I then followed my sentence with the phrasing, "Disallowing two PEOPLE..." Now, what you say against me is that I called incest and weird animal fetishes legal. That is irrelevant in this argument as well as strange of you to bring up because, I, as you do, realize that marriage consists of the ability to say vows and sign a contract. Are you insinuating that gay marriage is similar to that of incest or animal human relationships? How discriminatory.

The Bill of Rights allows for freedom of religion, I agree with you there. In fact, the last debate I gave centered around that argument. However, though you may preach your religion (Christianity), you may not enforce or demand that people think the way you do and not allow them to marry because YOUR church says that THEY cannot marry. What message do you have for atheist or agnostic gay people? Answer that in your response, please, I am curious. That is an indirect summation and simply how I interpret it.

Let's move on to the grievous errors in your contentions.

"Allowing Gay Marriage, and thus introducing the possibility for more types of marriages, is not needed because gay couples could still live together and their love for each other would be the same."

That is your exact statement, no?
Would it be the same? I think that you are asserting, unless there is a scientific study I have missed. Also, you claimed that it allows the possibilty for other marriages. Not only is that also an assertion, are you comparing same-sex marriage to that of dogs or incest? How crude, discriminatory, and completely nonfactual.

"Dr. Byrd explained how children need both a mother and a father, not a father and a father or a mother and a mother, in order to grow into emotionally mature adults. The article also went on to say how children in homosexual households are more prone to become homosexual."

Again, a copy and paste from your direct argument.
Who is this Dr. Byrd? I looked at the website you provided, and it is a poor one. Are there other studies such as this? Share if so.
"...more prone to become homosexual." Any other MAJOR, RELIABLE studies say that? I think not. I tried to find them and was unsuccessful.
Are you against gay people? I think your personal issues against homosexuality, whether taught or learned, are preventing you from making a good argument. So what, they become homosexual? Is that wrong? Don't argue me on what you think is a sin, argue me on something a tad more tangible because I am an agnostic and your version of "sinning", well, quite frankly, I don't think I agree with.

Now for a quick overview of my final two points.
I think I pretty much covered the Christian element.

Do you know why, ladies and gentlemen, that gay marriage is not addressed in a major way in the Constitution?
Because it was written centuries ago, and I am making a very logical opinion that there were not a lot of open gay people, let alone those who would want to get married under the eyes of the law. People are already starting to see this and here is where gay marriage is legal, according to Kathy Belge and
-Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Washington D.C.
-Argentina allows gay marriage, along with several states in Brazil and Mexico, Uruguay
-Andorra, Australia, Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Slovenia, Finland, France, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Luxembourg, New Zealand, Switzerland and the United Kingdom

That was a brief picture of my point because I'm saving that for my final. And besides, I'm not sure how influential that argument is. Just a side note

A recent Newsweek poll:

•62% of Americans say that their religious views influence their feelings on this issue.
•50% of those aged 18 to 24 back gay marriage rights
•40% ages 35 to 64 support gay marriage
•20% over 64 support gay marriage

Go to and look up "gay marriage poll", it's there.

And, lastly, let me finish off this round with a National Social Health and Life Survey that states:
2.8% of the male, and 1.4% of the female, population of America identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual.

I think that this issue has been minimized to make you think that we are denying only a small margin. We are not. This affects everyone.


I would like to thank my opponent for the swift reply and I will take the initiative to proceed with this debate.

Psychological Pulls/Contentions:

My opponent has declared that I have been subtly pulling psychological pulls which I do not understand as my opponent did not elaborate very well on this subject nor give any examples of such practice. I find this attempt to invalidate my arguments lazy on the opponent's part to try to make it seem I'm pulling of something I'm not without even fully explaining this position as well as making bad assumptions of their opponent. My opponent went on to say that I did not provide any contentions of my own when I clearly stated at the end of my speech "My contentions:" and went on to give my contentions.

Emotional Bond/ Legal Bond:

First, my opponent goes on to say that they have never made an emotional bond argument even though they said in their introductory paragraph that "The unchanging, fundamental principles of marriage from an emotional standpoint" clearly pointing out to a contention based on the emotional standpoint of marriage and even went on to say in the paragraph talking about this contention that "Disallowing two people who love each other and are committed to each other to marry" clearly insinuating emotion. So I made a refutation on everything about emotion in your speech.

Next, my opponent goes on to continue to provide false information when they say that I said that my opponent called incest and weird animal fetishes legal, however, all I said is using the same logic they applied (whoever loves each other can get married), that introduces more marriage types such as brother and sister, and so on. My opponent goes even further to say that this is irrelevant to the discussion, and again, I've already proved their information is false. Finally, my opponent continues to litter their arguments with false information and hasty assumptions when you declare that I might be insinuating that gay marriage is similar to incest and animal human relationships. However, I was only using the logic you made and applied it to several other scenarios.

Bill of Rights:

First of all, I did not mention freedom of religion, but freedom of speech. Next, I'm simply saying that Christians have a right to enter into this debate and give their own opinion on this subject because of freedom of speech. Next, my message to atheists or agnostics that are gay? Simple. Freedom of speech applies to them as well so they can put their own opinion in this debate likewise.

Gay Marriage Types:

Next, my opponent makes an attempt to refute my points that allowing gay marriage will breed new marriage types. I solely said that based on the logic of my opponent that as long as people love each other, they can marry, thus, I will reiterate once more, that a son and his mother can marry as long they love each other based on my opponent's logic. Obviously, since my opponent disagrees with these types of marriages, then to stay consistent, they could not agree with gay marriage, thus theoretically, they have neglected the position that have started as in this case. After that, my opponent continues to label my arguments with words based solely on emotion such as "cruel" and "discriminatory" even though my opponent continues to show that they have no real evidence of their claims.

Dr. Byrd:

My opponent, instead of attacking the content of my sources, decides to attack the reliability of my sources without even giving reason on why it is unreliable. Next my opponent doesn't realize what website they are on as well, so I will explain that to them: It is a website for the National Association for Research and Therapy for Homosexuality and Dr.Byrd was a president of this association. By the way, you can find that information on the website. Need more sources, here: and

Next, my opponent asks me a question that I find ridiculous. Again with the hasty assumptions. "I think your personal issues against homosexuality, whether taught or learned, are preventing you from making a good argument" with the keywords "I think" show that this claim is already unsupported and based only on opinion. My opponent also asks me a question about whether I am against gays and I will refuse to answer this question until my opponent shows me the relativity of this question to the topic. Then my opponent says "Don't argue me on what you think is a sin" clearly making yet another assumption. Did I ever say that anywhere in my speeches? I've been merely debating my opponent on a subject and have not put anywhere anything about sin.

Opponent's Last Contentions:

My opponent continues with a side note that I will disregard as my opponent has admitted that it is just a side note. Next, they use a poll that I don't understand is in any way, shape, or form helpful to their argument. All I see is just a bunch of people sharing their opinion; no harm in that. Then my opponent uses percentages to show the number of non-heterosexuals in America and still I don't see how this helps my opponent's arguments.


I've noticed that opponent littered their arguments with hasty assumptions and false information. They also declare information that I see no relativity to the topic. My opponent has also happened to not talk about their fake quote from the constitution. All in all, my opponent has been giving arguments that aren't strong and I've properly refuted.
Debate Round No. 2


originalthought forfeited this round.


My opponent has forfeited the last round so was unable to refute any of my contentions or refutations, thus my points still stand. Please vote CON.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Yurlene 6 years ago
NARTH is not really a credible source to get this information from. Might as well get the source from FRC while you are at it.
Posted by TheLaw 6 years ago
1) I was simply going off my opponent's logic that whoever loves each other can marry.
2) What do you mean by put their own definition of marriage? Because as long as they didn't rewrite any legal or well known definition, then this point itsn't true. They can make their own opinions on what they think marriage because like I said, freedom of speech.
3) I do not recall stating that children are harmed with having gay parents, however I did say that children need both a mother and a father. The site I got this information from also went on to give reasons behind.

By the way, if you'd like, we could formally debate this.
Posted by sydnerella 6 years ago
Also, children are not harmed by having gay parents. They ARE harmed, however, by the lack of clear and enforceable ties to their parents that the government sets up by keeping gay marriage illegal.
Posted by sydnerella 6 years ago
I want to refute a few of cons points.

1) Allowing gay marriage would NOT lead to legalized bestiality. Animals cannot give legal consent. No one is contesting the ability of adult, gay and lesbian couples to give this consent.
2) While, yes, Christians are afforded the same free speech rights as all Americans, and this also should not be contested, the influence of Christianity on national policy is completely irrelevant. Christians, or I should say certain Christians, may choose to speak out against gay marriage, but they do not have the right to put their definition of marriage into public policy. That is exactly what is happening now with the current status of gay marriage, and this needs to change.
Posted by originalthought 6 years ago

I'd find that helpful, thanks.
Could you send me a message?
Posted by wjmelements 6 years ago
"all men are created equal in the eyes of the government"

No such statement exists in the Constitution.
Posted by pewpewpew 6 years ago
Yeah, I'm also pro for this to.
I wonder how this will turn out...
Posted by sherlockmethod 6 years ago
I agree with your position but not your reasoning per se. Would you have an issue with me taking this to show some fallacies I see, or would you rather your opponent actually support the Con position? I can argue the Con position although I disagree with it. Let me know and i will give a good debate.
Posted by Arithmetician 6 years ago
I am totally on your side in this debate. I can't wait to see how it turns out.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by vickynoh 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 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:32 
Vote Placed by TheLaw 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06