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

gay marriage, gays in military and gays in general are not unethical

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  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/10/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,093 times Debate No: 11384
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




Thank you to whoever takes on this debate.
The Netherlands, Belgium, Spain, Canada, Norway, Sweden and South Africa are nations which constitutionally allow gay marriage. Therefore, I do not see any reason why our country cannot allow it. Even though I am very patriotic, I feel that; we, as Americans, are too intertwined in other people's personal life. Gay companionship is only wrong because the bible states that it is. But, the bible is in fact, written by human beings and not a greater being. Constantine actually eradicated anything that contradicts his view of what the bible should be, so who knows what is true and what isn't.
I am a very straight male, who feel extremely strong about this topic. I am adopted and my foster dad is gay himself. We live a perfectly normal life and if you met him, you probably would have never guessed he was gay. He lives a life of integrity: recycles and conserves everything, polite to others, donate things frequently, religious, extremely smart, and raised me from a mischievous little kid to a prudent business manager. So to say that being gay is wrong and that it will greatly contribute to the destruction of a child's life is not true.
My brother is an Army Ranger and returned home from a tour in Iraq last year. He is also a very ethical person and contributed in protecting the newly elected president of Iraq. He's actually lucky he is not dead because his partner switched patrol duty with him one night and ended up getting shot. Even though my brother is not gay, what if he was? Would I not love him anymore? Would the Army kick him out because of his sexual orientation even after his contributions? Laws are meant for protecting people, but our laws on this subject are based on prejudice and bigotry; not protection.


I see you really meant to be on the pro side, but I'll play devil's advocate anyway.

Beforehand though, I just want to state that I am a gay 17 year old who is planning to enlist in the army and maybe in the far future, marry Mr. right, but for the sake of argumentative purposes I will play devil's advocate and maybe this debate will serve as an example of the homophobic rhetoric.

Allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military will ruin unit cohesion, for the fact that there are some men and women in the armed services who are opposed to the normalization of homosexuality, and subjecting them to additional stresses will put the said personnel in greater danger, thus making it unethical (1).

It also brings back why the DADT Policy was put in place during the Clinton's administration, for there was rampant harassment of gays in the military (2).

Homosexuals and homosexual marriage are unethical because the bible condemns the sin of homosexuality (3).

Yea there's no avoiding that one but in the eyes of a really, really fundamentalist person, the acceptance of homosexuals is an open threat to their religion whether it be Catholicism, Christianity, Islam, etc. is akin to not having one's views being represented. And the next small point is not part of the argument due to the fact the the argument is on ethics, but alot of fundies fear the typical point a to point z theory: gay acceptance -> polygamists marrying underage animals! and they also fear that their rights to speak out against homosexuality will be criminalized in the form of hate crimes.

Side Convo:
"I am a very straight male" ha ha what does "very straight" mean?

Sources Used
Debate Round No. 1


kenhaupt forfeited this round.


I will continue my arguments from round #1
Debate Round No. 2


I would first and foremost like to apologize for any confusion, I meant to be on the pro side. Second, I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this argument, given his orientation regarding this topic. Third I want to apologize again for not stating my argument on time for the 2nd round.

You stated:
Allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military will ruin unit cohesion, for the fact that there are some men and women in the armed services who are opposed to the normalization of homosexuality, and subjecting them to additional stresses will put the said personnel in greater danger, thus making it unethical.

I assert that the notion above is false, given that Alexander The Great engaged in homosexual activities and he is one of the most prolific rulers of all time. His lover was one of his main generals and they persuaded their army of approximately 47,000 to fight against the Persians of a mere 150,000. To assert that the intervals are too far apart and that it is irrelevant, is false; because, I assure you that men of both ages in time, felt the same fear and pain. What is irrelevant is the stress concerning the sexual orientation of a comrade when an enemy is shooting at you and the only one who's in close proximity to aiding you is that fellow gay soldier.

Being gay or even different is susceptible to bigotry and prejudice. To say that the sexual orientation will distract soldiers from daily military obligations must have not lived around an urban neighborhood.

Homosexuals and homosexual marriage are unethical because the bible condemns the sin of homosexuality (3).

Homosexuality is not the culprit of some sins being offended. If anything, I feel that it is the church which is nurturing some of these sins. It must be a cliche now about priests and molestation. A blind man with half a brain can see a pattern with the church and molestation. It is natural for men and women to have sexual relations and when you deprive someone of this, they will find another way to satisfy their urges. When people don't socialize with others, they tend to acquire very awkward behaviors. I know that some places they allow priest to marry, but actually very stern Catholic churches don't like that idea.

In all the years of management, I've learned to be aware of patterns. When something exhibits a pattern and it is causing you problems, it usually isn't the person, it is the system. In pertinence, If you take care of the big things, the small things will take care of itself.

Thank you

Very straight meaning I love women.


In Alexander's time, the residents of the classical era were more tolerant to homosexuality, but in today's time it is not the case. With the dominance of fundamental thought and religions, a lot of people will be dissuaded from their views on homosexuality. A lot of soldiers have conservative backgrounds (small rural areas) than liberal backgrounds (areas that may be anti-military, or appeals to more artistic or academic pursuits rather than a one in the military), even though a majority of the men and women currently serving don't mind gays serving, there is still anti-gay attitudes among the youth with adoption of homophobic slurs as an example, the recruitment rates will suffer for America is still heavily divided on this issue, with the urban population being more open to it but the rural population actually supplying the recruits. It will be unethical because it undermines the bond between soldiers (a gay one and a homophobic one) and with the recruitment rates suffering, why discourage many in the rural population from enlisting?

Although it is true that the Catholic Dioceses a few years back (or currently, I haven't bothered to check) has been involved in moving members suspected of molestation around to avoid them being detained by law enforcement, it is still not the point. The point is in the eyes of the church, the word of God surpasses the laws of man, and there are biblical verses (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13) that clearly expresses that homosexuality is detestable.

Side Convo: I can't get any sources for this round for about every time I search "reasons why homosexuality is unethical" a majority of those sites were actually pro-gay and defeated the reasons they posted, a few sites that actually were anti-gay, were also full of bigots (West Borough anyone?). I have actually wished for a better anti-gay website to help me with this debate ha ha.
Debate Round No. 3


ok , since you don't have much source, lets conclude this debate to be fair,


Alright this debate can not be decided by logic and statistics for one has their own definition of what is ethical and what is not. But to my opponent, good debate and vote for him if you like.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by kenhaupt 8 years ago
yeah i just realized about the error
Posted by kristoffersayshi 8 years ago
oh crap, i forgot you had to start it, my bad
Posted by Puck 8 years ago
May want to edit your title since the double negative makes your argument (Con) contrary to it.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 4 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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit, and pro was very polite.