The Instigator
Pro (for)
14 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
7 Points

This house believes that gay marriage should be legalized

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/13/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 5,677 times Debate No: 28176
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (3)




Hello david.palbino! I want to debate agasint you in this motion.

This are the rules for each round.

R1 - Acceptance, Definition
R2 - Arguments from Pro, Rebuttal and Argument from Con
R3 - Rebuttal and Argument from both Con
R4 - Clash Analysis
R5 - Summary of the debate

The term "gay" in this debate means homosexaul.

The place for this debate would be most fair if it was set in countries that do allow homosexaulity on the law but do not admit their right to marriage.

I have seen few of your debates and I found that I want to debate against you. We have similar percentile as well, so I expect this to be an interesting debate.

How do you think?


Hi Ike, I acept the challenge with pleasure.

Please can call me Dave,

are you really 14? I'm asking because I feel bad bulling people who are just half my age.

This is going to be a comedy debate (as you know I'm in favour of gay rigths)

I would prefer if we can debate by making youtube videos, but this is up to you to acept it or not, I will not default.

Are you really living in China? I'm asking because I don't know what is happening in that country?

Debate Round No. 1



It is now a widely accepted fact that homosexuality is naturally made, not only viewing from scientific studies that prove its apriority [1], but also viewing from homosexual behaviors that are documented all the way back from ancient Greece to today. Homosexuality is also seen in 1,500 species of animal including mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians, insects and other invertebrates [2]. Being proven to be innate, homosexuality seemingly should not be debatable or discriminated. But due to human race’s unfamiliarity with same-sex having affectionate bond, gay marriage debate become one of the most common debating topics around the world. The main essence of gay marriage debate is if abandoning this social stereotype is necessary when there are organizations and peoples who renounce homosexuality.

In this debate, I argue that gay marriage should be legalized. Under the definition, the argument will not extend to region where homosexuality is criminalized for it is very unreasonable to extend the debate to those regions. My burden of proof will be to show that tolerance towards homosexuality is not enough but legalization of their marriage should happen.

I will present my case from two different aspects: individual and social benefits of legalization of gay marriage. By individual, I represent the homosexual couples themselves and by social benefit, I represent the general community. I will elaborate my individual argument on this round and social argument on my next round.

ARGUMENT1: Individual Homosexual Couples

Regardless of race, physical condition and lifestyle, every person is entitled of human rights. These rights are granted unconditionally, which means sexual preference do not prevent one from being entitled from these rights. Taking a look at this right that is also fully granted to peoples with homosexual reference, under Article 7, it is promised that all human will be free from discrimination and treated equality in front of the law.

There is absolutely no reason to exclude and forbid marriage between two individuals just because they are homosexual. Homosexuality is neither an option that one can choose nor a crime. It has been around in our world for millenniums and all over the various types of species. It is completely illogical to discriminate marital right because of sexual preference since marriage itself means a formal bond of affection between two individuals and is not about reproductive ability. Forbidding homosexual marriage is contradicting the spirit of equality and legalizing it is serving and upholding the basic rights and humanity of a human.

Legalizing homosexual marriage is also abiding by right to pursue happiness that all countries in the range of this debate has in one form or another. Everyone is entitled to pursue happiness in their lives as long as their actions are legal and moral. This means that forbidding homosexuality, which is not illegal (under our definition) and moral has to be protected and those who achieve happiness in means of homosexuality should not be discriminated. Forbidding the right to marry the partner that one desire is not only a state tyranny but also is going against constitutional right to pursue happiness. To protect this fundamental right, gay marriage has to be legalized.

The legalization of gay marriage will surely ensure the happiness and satisfy countless gay couples that desire marriage. In many surveys led to gather approximate number of gay couples, couples marked themselves as married, portraying their desire to marriage [3]. In US, about 2 million children are being raised by LGBT couples but are unable to have legal bond with their parents because the state do not categorize LGBT couples as “married” [4]. All these are some tragic results that can be adjusted by abiding human rights and constitutional rights. Gay marriage has to be legalized to provide gay couples with marital benefits, legal child custody but the basic right to form family in the first place.

2.5% of the population is predicted to be innately homosexual. This rate is similar with left-handed population. Traditionally, left handers were discriminated and were forced to follow the social norm which is the right hand. During my years of early education, I was forced to write in right hand by my kindergarten and primary school teachers. I have heard many stories where Catholic school instructors tied left-handed students so they would not practice penmanship with their hand that they are born to be more comfortable with. Nowadays, social norm against left-handedness has already changed. Left-handedness which once was viewed as a disorder and a misfortune is now socially accepted. It became the part of social norm. Taking an example of South Korea, schools in the past generation forced an abstinence of usage of left hand from left-handers. Many parents forbid their children from their meal if they used left hand to manipulate eating utensils. This idea is still common among senior citizens of Korea. Many adults from past generations still denounce left-handedness. However, discrimination on left-handedness is rather less in nowadays South Korea. Schools do not force students to follow the majority. Parents who forbid meal just because their children used left hand to eat will most likely to become the target to look down on in the community. The social norm did change in Korea.

This similar analogy is enough to show that homosexuality can become a part of social norm. No one should be discriminated for factors they are born with. Homosexuality is one of factors that mankind are born with. Limiting their happiness and basic right to form union with their loved ones is ridiculous and needs abolition immediately. If an aberration that formed only 2.5% of the general population slowly became social norm, so can homosexuality which is suspected in about 10~20% of the general population [5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10].

To ensure happiness and to uphold the basic rights of the homosexuals, legalization of gay marriage has to happen.






[5] Billy JO, Tanfer K, Grady WR, Klepinger DH (1993). "The sexual behavior of men in the United States". Family Planning Perspectives 25 (2): 52–60.

[6] Binson, Diane; Michaels, Stuart; Stall, Ron; Coates, Thomas J.; Gagnon, John H.; Catania, Joseph A. (1995). "Prevalence and Social Distribution of Men Who Have Sex with Men: United States and Its Urban Centers". The Journal of Sex Research 32 (3): 245–54.

[7] Bogaert AF (September 2004). "The prevalence of male homosexuality: the effect of fraternal birth order and variations in family size". Journal of Theoretical Biology

[8] Fay RE, Turner CF, Klassen AD, Gagnon JH (January 1989). "Prevalence and patterns of same-gender sexual contact among men". Science 243 (4889): 338–48.

[9] Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality: Sexual practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

[10] McConaghy et al., 2006



Oh my God! How arrogant you are!!!!!!!

Homosexuality is natural therefore homosexuality is good. How said that natural things are good? Dying from flu is natural, starving is natural, cannibalism is natural... what a silly argument is that????

And why do you need to use so many references, this just tells me that you are an insecure person, when something is true, one reference is enough, but when something is false, you need many references, the more you repeat a lie the easier is to believe it, by the way, non of your links does work.

And what about the left handed people? Does anyone know a country where it is illegal to be left handed? I don't. So what is the link with gay marriage.

What do you mean that it is unreasonable to criminalize homosexuality? I know a few reasons for that:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is an abomination.[2](Leviticus 18:22 KJV)
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.[3](Leviticus 20:13 KJV)

God said homosexuality is an abomination, the bible says so, and the bible don't lie[1], but as you are a blind atheist you can't see how reasonable is to criminalize homosexuality.

I'm going to say something good about you.

I'm delighted to know that you are in favor of human rights, but I wish you found a better way to invest your effort.

I'm living in ireland, and in Ireland homosexuals have civil unions and heterosexuals have marriage.

I feel discriminated!, a civil union is superior to a marriage.

I woke up every day asking myself why I'm not gay? I wish I was gay, because when you are gay, it is a lot easier to find a sexual partner and the whole society protects you, and if someone is bad with you, you can call him homophobic or racist.

When you are gay everything is easier.

Marriage is a church product, and it is forever, it is a diabolic concept and it guarantees unhappiness.

You are trying to usurp the word “marriage” from the church, and that is a rob, states should be secular, church should not be secular, find you own word and let the church as it is! You already know what God things about same sex couples, you don't have the right to tell god to change his bible, that is against freedom of expression.

People like you, are working hard to drag the happiness of homosexuals at the same level as the unhappiness as heterosexuals, and that is not noble.

The word “gay” itself means happy. How you dear to say that they are not happy!!!

What was the thing about legal bounds from parents to children.

I don't want any legal bound, how about if tomorrow I change my mind and I want to quick my child out of my home? If you are gay you can do it, but if you are not gay you can not do it.

What proves that gay people have better rights than heterosexuals

[1] The moronic encyclopedia, on the bible.

Debate Round No. 2


On my third round, I will further develop my other half of the argument that is regarding the social benefit of legalization. But before that, I would like to rebut some points that my opponent gave in the previous round.


Rebuttal 1: Biblical Source

My opponent used a biblical source to prove that gay marriage should not be legalized. However, this is not a valid rebuttal since biblical source is not the truth. Christians may argue that the Holy Bible cannot be argued. The Holy Bible is a reglious text that is not based on logic and reasoning but is purely basing on faith system. Please offer appraisal to Bible during church services. A debate discussing a policy of a country is not a place to use Bible to attack and defend arguments. Bible forbids divorce, wearing gold and men without testicle entering church [1]. However, all of those three things that Bible forbids are allowed in reality. No court denies a couple’s separation just because the Bible said so. There are no cops that catch women for wearing gold jewelries. From my experience, there are no law enforcers standing in front of a church door to check if each men entering have a proper sexual organ. This three example already shows that Bible do not determine law. Please go check on link [1]. There are so many other interesting things that Bible forbids that are not forbidden by law that I cannot discuss without turning this debate into PG 18+.

If anyone still wants to argue that lawmaking process should base on Bible, please explain why Bible is not being used as constitutions around the world and then explain more on why Bible is a valid source to use in a debate. After that, I can consider listening to Leviticus’ argument.

Rebuttal 2: Civil Union

Con argued that civil union is superior to marriage and hence, heterosexuals are in fact being reversely discriminated. However, this is very untrue. Civil union that my opponent claimed to be superior to marriage is in fact similar or occasionally less beneficial then marriage. A legal marriage that has been documented in a specific area is admitted in other countries even if marital laws are different in the new region. For example, Oregan State admits marriage between 17-year-old couples. However, Washington State admits marriage between couples 18 years or above. But if a 17-year-old couple married in the State of Oregan moved to Washington State, they still are admitted as married in Washington State. However, this is not true for civil union in most cases. Their union is recognized only in the area. In many cases, benefits and rights that couples bonded by civil unions are less than couples with marital bonds [2]. Please explain how civil union is superior to marriage.

Rebuttal 3: Reverse Discrimination

Con also argued that homosexuals are in fact granted of better rights than heterosexuals and questioned me for what makes homosexuals have better rights than heterosexuals. He argued that just because of the fact that individuals are gays, making sexual partners becomes easier, the whole society protects them and that they can announce people who dislike them a homophobic or racist. This is very untrue. As mentioned, only about 3% of the population is homosexual which makes it harder to find sexual partners. The society does not protect them but instead, denounces them. The church, as we saw calls it an abomination. In some extreme countries, homosexuality is sentenced death. We see a lot of homophobias who just detest homosexuals for no reason, even on Homosexuals do not call anyone who is unfriendly to them “homophobic” or racist. The term racist is not even relevant with homosexuality.

Rebuttal 4: Misinterpretations & Irrelevances

I’d like to say some of the arguments made by Con were very irrelevant to my previous arguments and were written after misinterpreting my case. Con’s first claim on his previous round already carries misinterpretation. I never claimed that natural means good. I gave analogy for left-handedness to show similar case where social norm did change and became tolerant to a difference, not to prove that the situation is identical. I gave numbers regarding children of gay couples not being able to form legal bond with their parents’ to show the tragic problem, not to hear that Con might want to kick his children out. Con also marginalized importance of human rights. He also undermined the accuracy of my statistic by claiming that citing from multiple sources represent the fallacious nature of an argument. The only reason I referenced so much on that specific data was because it was shocking. For that, I gave multiple links to avoid hassle. There are more to rebut, I will conclude my rebuttal here to leave character space for second half of the argument.

ARGUMENT 2: Social Benefit of Legalization

There are two ways how legalizing marriage between homosexuals and giving them the identical rights with heterosexual couples can benefit the society.

Sub-Point 1: Adoption

Homosexual couples cannot reproduce. So when gay marriage becomes legal, only way homosexual couples can have children is if they adopt. This will ultimately provide orphans a loving family. There has been huge debate about if orphans will in fact be better off with homosexual couples. But let us be honest. There is no doubt that an actual family is better than orphanage. As Danielle successfully proved with multiple citations, children raised by homosexual couples are not different from children from normal couples [3] but are in fact advantaged in certain parts. They tend to be more tolerant towards homosexuality since they are more exposed to it [4]. It really is undeniable that legalizing gay marriage will improve the condition for orphans. As said in my previous round, there are huge amount of children being raised by homosexual couples. If those homosexual couples can adopt children through proper means and method after they are legally permitted and legally guaranteed the right to adopt, it surely will encourage adoption, providing more orphans with a loving family environment.

Sub-Point 2: Breaking Social Prejudice and Tradition

We all know that there is a huge social prejudice against homosexuality. As my opponent showed us, Christianity publicly declares homosexuality to be an abomination. Homophobes are easily seen everywhere including The society in general distances from homosexuality since it is different. But this prejudice is no different from racism.

Both racism and discrimination against homosexuality is biased against a factor that one cannot determine. Just like one is not responsible for their skin color, sexual reference is also not relied on the will of each individual. It is innate. It is undeniable that discriminations against factors that are innate are unreasonable and unfair. These type of biases has to be abandoned and the optimal place to begin the movement in disregarding such bias is starting from the law. Abolishing the Apartheid that discriminated the black by the law was the first symbolic movement that started social movement to abandon racial discrimination. What law agrees upon will inevitably be seen as tolerable and acceptable. Because the law finally declared the equality of all races, it helped in removing social prejudice against the black that they are inferior to Caucasians.

The same analogy applies to gay marriage. The law has to agree upon homosexual marriage and announce gay marriage to be acceptable so that the nation will feel the impression that gay marriage is something that the legal system approved and hence there is nothing illegitimate. It is time for government to step up for these people.








Rebuttal 1:

The bible is not true?

The bible is the truth materialized in a book,

by the way, The Quran is the constitution of Saudi Arabia, and how knows maybe one day the bible will be the constitution of USA.

Your arrogance makes you think that reasoning the only way.

I mention the bible because you said that there is not logical reason to be against gays, and the truth is that if you already believe that the bible is the wish of God, then there is a logical path to be against homosexuals. This is so evident that I'm sure you are pretending to don't understand it.

I don't think the bible is accurate but I know many people how beliefs the bible is accurate and hate homosexuals because the bible suggest to do so. (some people may argue they hate homosexuals to hide their homosexuality)[1]

Rebuttal 2: civil union, on how civil unions are superior to marriage:

In the stat of Ireland, is very hard to get a divorce if you are married, but it is far more easy to get it if you are a gay couple.

Marriage is a church invention, and is a horrible product, it hurts both of them, and don't allow them to get divorce, for instance you have to applied to get a divorce 4 years in advance, but civil unions are better, a civil union is a contract explaining what will happen in the case of a divorce, and the contract is not poisoned with religious ideology.

Rebuttal 3: on reverse discrimination.

I don't know in your country, but in my home country, Spain, it is illegal to teach to the kids that gay marriage is not a marriage, and I have quite a lot homosexual friends from both sexes, and I can see that for them thanks to internet finding a partner is very easy.

I'm also aware that the countries with the highest levels of homosexuality in which almost every one had an homosexual relation such arab countries, happen to have also dead penalty for homosexuality, who would imagine...?

Rebuttal 4: on Argument 2

We all know that pure homosexuality is bad because you can pass your genes to the next generation unless you have heterosexual sex.

Legalizing homosexual marriages is helping them to die out.

Being homosexual is not like being black, black people can reproduce, homosexual having sex to each other do not.

That is not completely true, because I know a few lesbian couples with children, just in case you didn't notice, there are many good reproductive clinics, and there is always the “honey, let's get together and have sex both of us with that man”.

This is not a contra argument, I'm just showing that my opponent, don't know what he is talking about when he claim homosexuals can not reproduce.

Argument 5:

Why are you degrading the level of your references? In the previous round you reference “Science” the second best research journal in the world, but now you only reference web pages, who only God know who wrote them and how accurate they are. (no scientific training, no pair revision, no comments, …).

By the way, your links are still not working!!!!!!!!!!

Argument 6:

Marriage is a horrible legal bound poisoned by religious ideology “marriage is forever, therefore you should not get a divorce ever”, “you have the duty to bring children”...

Christ know how bad was to be married, that is why he come to the earth as a gay man with 12 boyfriends. [2]

we should not still marriage from the church, it is unfair.

Here in Ireland priests usually tell in the news papers that gay marriage should be illegal because married couple pay less taxes, and because the state should promote people to produce babies, because we will get old and we need them to take care of us.

The problem is that some people get married just to pay less taxes.

Let me tell you what it is fair,

We should ban marriage.

And only give tax benefits to the people who is taking care of children, no matter how is the biological parent, or if the parents are still married or separated or whatever.


[1]Why Is the Penis Shaped Like That?: And Other Reflections on Being Human, July 2012

[2] This is not important but I feel like posting a romantic poem, I'm sure even you will apreciat the art of James Kirdup:


By James Kirkup


As they took him from the cross

I, the centurion, took him in my arms-

the tough lean body

of a man no longer young,

beardless, breathless,

but well hung.


He was still warm.

While they prepared the tomb

I kept guard over him.

His mother and the Magdalen

had gone to fetch clean linen

to shroud his nakedness.


I was alone with him.

For the last time

I kissed his mouth. My tongue

found his, bitter with death.

I licked his wound-

the blood was harsh

For the last time

I laid my lips around the tip

of that great cock, the instrument

of our salvation, our eternal joy.

The shaft, still throbbed, anointed

with death's final ejaculation


I knew he'd had it off with other men-

with Herod's guards, with Pontius Pilate,

With John the Baptist, with Paul of Tarsus

with foxy Judas, a great kisser, with

the rest of the Twelve, together and apart.

He loved all men, body, soul and spirit. - even me.


So now I took off my uniform, and, naked,

lay together with him in his desolation,

caressing every shadow of his cooling flesh,

hugging him and trying to warm him back to life.

Slowly the fire in his thighs went out,

while I grew hotter with unearthly love.

It was the only way I knew to speak our love's proud name,

to tell him of my long devotion, my desire, my dread-

something we had never talked about. My spear, wet with blood,

his dear, broken body all open wounds,

and in each wound his side, his back,

his mouth - I came and came and came


as if each coming was my last.

And then the miracle possessed us.

I felt him enter into me, and fiercely spend

his spirit's finbal seed within my hole, my soul,

pulse upon pulse, unto the ends of the earth-

he crucified me with him into kingdom come.


-This is the passionate and blissful crucifixion

same-sex lovers suffer, patiently and gladly.

They inflict these loving injuries of joy and grace

one upon the other, till they dies of lust and pain

within the horny paradise of one another's limbs,

with one voice cry to heaven in a last divine release.


Then lie long together, peacefully entwined, with hope

of resurrection, as we did, on that green hill far away.

But before we rose again, they came and took him from me.

They knew no what we had done, but felt

no shame or anger. Rather they were gald for us,

and blessed us, as would he, who loved all men.


And after three long, lonely days, like years,

in which I roamed the gardens of my grief

seeking for him, my one friend who had gone from me,

he rose from sleep, at dawn, and showed himself to me before

all others. And took me to him with

the love that now forever dares to speak its name.

Debate Round No. 3


In this round, I will focus mainly on clash analysis.


Clash 1: Reliability of Bible

There was a huge controversy over reliability of Bible as a source in a debate. I really find myself lost with words on how stubbornly my opponent is arguing without logical basis. It is noteworthy how even rebuttal my opponent gave still counters his own argument. He said that Bible is the only truth and yet he showed that Quran is being used as constitution in Saudi Arabia. Even if we assume that Bible and Quran come from the similar root, he himself showed that US does not use Bible as their Constitution. Again, please explain why Bible is not being used as constitutions around the world and then explain more on why Bible is a valid source to use in a debate. After that, I can consider listening to Leviticus’ argument.

Clash 2: Superiority of Civil Union

My opponent argued that homosexuals are in fact more privileged since they can form civil union. I rebutted that by saying civil union promise less rights and gave example as well. His response to my rebuttal was that civil union is easier to separate. However, this is exactly proving my point. Gay couples that want a legal bond want a strong and a stable bond. My link also showed that tendency of gay couples wanting a legal bond. The fact that civil union is easily breakable means the government does not admit them as married. They cannot enjoy benefits and privileges that normal married couple can enjoy.

Clash 3: Reproductive Skill of Homosexuals

This is in fact helping my case. Many concerns about homosexual marriage are about children. People worry that children do not have biological bond with their parents when they are adopted by homosexual couples. If lesbian couples can in fact make their own children that solves the child concern for lesbian couples. Those kids from lesbian couples will have biological bond with their mothers. While lesbian couples have kids that are biologically from them, male couples can lead in providing family for more orphans through adoption.

There was not much of clash in this debate, hence there wasn’t so much to analyze. There were interesting comments made by my opponent though. My opponent indeed made his arguments a comedy.

Even if my opponent approached this debate with comedy, I ask the voters to still cast votes on professional standard when this debate goes under voting period.



About the bible:
The bible is not a country constitution because christian fundamentalists didn't manage to hijack the government, but give them time, they will make it. By the way my home country was created to protect christian faith, it was quite long ago, but I'm sure you can still find people how want the law based in the bible, and they will vote to do so.

On civil unions:
The idea that marriage is forever is deeply retarded, science show that marriage last 10 years in average, marriage should be a contract explaining what will happen in case the members of the couple get tired of each other.
People who hate each other should be not force by the government to be united.
Marriage is not forever, and if you don't agree you are a reality denier or something worse: a christian.
For this reason I can honestly claim marriages that can be broken are superior to the ones which can not be broken.
By the way, can you explain what are the benefits of a marriage that civil unions don't have? I'm asking because I could not find any, but maybe that is because I live in Ireland, perhaps in China is gay marriage is different...

Joke Argument:
If we tolerate gay marriage imagine what can happen the next.....
The next will be to tolerate polygamy and group marriages... and to marry your own pets, " and then to have babies with your pets half human half gorilla, is this how AIDS jump from monkeys to humans? Or it is just my imagination? Indeed gay marriage is the pandora box.

Rude statement:
Now I would like to write a funny fact for all angry man who wrote to me saying that they think homosexuality is disgusting.

Scientist did an experiment measuring the penis arousal of man while seeing different types of pornography, and you know what? Homophobic people are the most likely to get an erection by watching gay porn. [1].
So if you really hate F.a.g.s., go to the mirror and have a small meditation on this question "Who i'm trying to full?" But don't worry too much, you always can do a conversion course to heterosexuality like "Ted Haggard" (check it out in wikipedia).
Homosexual relations are in the very hart of human nature, you just have look to the roman empire, very few emperors were purely heterosexual, and like that you will find hundreds of historical cases, but unbreakable marriage is not part of human nature.

Regarding the voters:
I think you should vote him, but give me more points because:
1 my opponent is unable to show sense of humor.
2 his reference links don't work.
3 he is not aggressive enough, maybe he is not well trained in the art of insulting or he is pretending to be gay in order to win votes for compassion " i'm not sure

[1]Why Is the Penis Shaped Like That?: And Other Reflections on Being Human,July 2012. I really recommend to reed this exelent scientific book.

who made this system??? why profanities are not allowed?
Debate Round No. 4


Before I begin my final round, I would like to express disappointment towards my opponent. My opponent now completely went off topic and started discussing about what he believes to be a superior marriage and how homosexual men react to homosexual pornography. That is in fact proving my case that homosexuals are innately made to like homosexual. He misinterpreted my arguments by far. He later on complained about the system on how it forbids profanities. Overall, my opponent showed poor debating manner and engagement.

Con also complained the fact that I am not well trained enough in insulting. My Con once had debate on DDO, on if should encourage debaters to insult each other. He lost the debate by far. If he still believes debates should be full of insults, he is free to believe. However, that does not mean I should be degraded for not insulting my opponent or debaters should insult each other.

Regardless of the Con’s lack of professionalism, I will carry on with my summary of this debate.

I basically argued in this debate that homosexuality should not be discriminated due to its innate nature.

After that, I explained two social benefits that allowing homosexuality brings: that it allows more adoption and that it signifies action against prejudice.

On who gets the vote, I leave it upon the voters. However, I would like to clarify that sense of humor, lack of “insult” and technical error that I have no control over is not voting criteria of debates.

Thanks for reading this debate.



Thanks every one for following specially Ike who had to listen me for a while and not always realize when I was kidding him.

This is a joke debate, you know that because you read my profile before asking me to debate with you and you know that I'm in favor of gay rights, civil union and gay marriage, so you can't be serious suggesting this debate.

Some people will think that there is an intellectual side against gay marriage and another in favor, this is just not true, there is a intellectual side in favor of human rights and a moronic religious side against.

Debating human rights (gay marriage) is like debating where children come from, WE SHOULD CONVEREGE!.

Marriage may be a good or bad product, but equality means equality for all.

By the way just in case some one doesn"t know many countries have gay marriage, and nothing bad come from it. Children rise by homosexual parents develop as good as the one rise by heterosexual parents.

Please do never give up on protecting human rights.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by david.palbino 3 years ago
Yes, I use it as a reference, for the part of Jesus having boyfriends
Posted by Wishing4Winter 3 years ago
David, who is your poem that is at the bottom of your last round relevant? I really would like to know.
Posted by Ike-Jin-Park 3 years ago
Don't get offended if you find my arguments harsh^^
Just a debate! No hard feelings AT ALL
Posted by david.palbino 3 years ago

let me tell you a secret: Religion has not moral base!
suicide bombing? genital mutilation? compulsory reproduction?

Homosexuality was always there, most of roman emperors, were bi-sexual.
Later Christianity arrived, and start criminalizing any kind of sex which don't leed to reproduction.
Posted by Blasko 3 years ago
Sorry for interruption but i would like to say a few words. Mmm.. well apparently I haven't read your arguments because I have my own perspective with this subject. That i strongly disagree with same sex marriage just because it's against the bible. Now you'll say we're living in the modern world we don't care what the bible said and everything like that. Let me tell you that human thinking isn't always right. The bible said In the last days morality is decreasing and here is the manifestation 'same sex marriage'. People lost their minds. ugh -.-
I don't exactly know how this nasty thing come out of mans mind and now legalize in some countries and later it will be natural to human mind.
Posted by Ike-Jin-Park 3 years ago
But I would still like to have a written debate first.
After we are done with this debate, I would seriously consider a skype debate.
Posted by david.palbino 3 years ago
I'm not doing this for achieve virtual medals.
Maybe we should debate without audience in skype.
Posted by Ike-Jin-Park 3 years ago
I agree that video debates will be more fun and effective at the same time.
I am actually much more familiar with speech style debates...
Posted by david.palbino 3 years ago
OK, no problem then we will follow the regular procedure,
I just think video-debates are more useful to build a lider.
I'm sorry to know you can't access YouTube.
Posted by Ike-Jin-Park 3 years ago
Yes I am a 14 and I do live in China but I am a Korean living in China.

I was looking for an actual debate. Though the YouTube idea sounded interesting, I cannot access YouTube in China so I guess it is not really possible.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Stupidwalrus 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: counter
Vote Placed by Straight_A_Kate 3 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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: ...
Vote Placed by Wishing4Winter 3 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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Con lost conduct for treating this debate as a joke which is quite disrespectful towards Pro, who actually put effort into this debate Con lost spelling and grammar for his numerous spelling and grammar errors Pro gets reliable sources as Pro had a plethora of reliable sources Pro gets convincing arguments as he was able to present a well written coherent argument in favor of gay marriage