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

gay marrige is WRONG

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: 1/27/2015 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 594 times Debate No: 68993
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)




gay marrige is wrong becase it is establish by the church and by god of the holy bible that amarrige is between a man and a woman.

gay marrige will destroy the family n our family values kids need 2 be raise by 1 man 1 woman or they becom very bad i no its hard 4 gays to understand but its just the truth

gay marrige will lead 2 destruction of marrige and ppl will mary animals an there family member and children. after gays have rigts liberals will give bestalityist and pedophiles rights. u will jus say that it is slippy slope fallacy but i say its not a fallacy it is real concern.

we have to stop gay marrige.


I do not expect to lay out all the facts of my argument in this section, but I will point out the obvious: Love makes marriage, and love is essential to a healthy, happy, and productive marriage.

Secondly; The history of Christianity is two thousand years long, and slightly longer if we include Judaism in the history of Christianity. Regardless; this is a relatively short period within the human experience confined to a very small area of the earth. Anthropologically there have been many forms of marriage in societies that were not as destructive, self destructive and as hell bent on suicide as our own. If we look at these forms of relationship as reflecting our biological needs then they are almost all naturally dioecious, meaning essentially- one man and one woman. But many of these social arrangements broke our one on one mold completely. These societies did not fail, but were healthy when discovered by modern Europeans. In addition, we have reports of Native American societies of homosexual marriages that were common enough to be accepted by the natives themselves. It was not homosexuality that destroyed these societies. At a very early age it was the children themselves who would reveal their own sexuality in their choice of toys. For the natives and for all primitive peoples, society was that one place on earth where they might consider themselves Free. Outside of society everyone was constrained by the need to reveal their own kind in a positive and honorable light. Today, youth can only be free outside of ones community. In the past, one could only be free within society.

In the philosophy and principal of the individuality, ones community looses all of its power. If Gay people are demanding Gay marriage it is on the basis of Individual rights. Upon what basis is their claim of their equal civil rights denied? Today it is denied on the basis of a foreign culture and religion. We do not follow the law of Moses. We certainly do not prosecute sin as if crime. Even in the churches, people rather forgive and forget than make an issue. They might consider the argument that society has a different aim than religion. While religions can keep their homogeneity by exclusion of those it does not like, society cannot exclude except in the case of crime. If we say that in the case of heterosexual marriage that fidelity is the goal in relationships, and promiscuity is resisted, is this not a worthy goal for homosexuals? What is the alternative; because as is true of all of us, sexually transmitted disease is a life altering and life shortening danger.

What we see clearly in the attempt of the religious to deny the right of marriage to homosexuals. This is the claim of religious privilege. To deny equal rights for an otherwise equal individual is a privilege rather than a right that makes those with the privilege more than equal to all others in society. The dynamic here is: The homosexual asking only for equality while the privileged deny equality on the basis of their privilege. Again; Marriage lessen the danger of infidelity, so Society on that basis alone should grant the right, but the churches, refuse that right on the basis of privilege. To look at marriage through the lens of the Bible is to see a greatly varied picture with incest defended and even polygamy. We can excuse them not wanting Homosexuality. Survival was often a breeding game in which those societies with the most bodies to lose could win, and bodies meant breeding. No one who was not fully a man could become members of Jewish society, and any slave who would not be circumcised, and Eunice were simply traded away. But we do not live in that fashion still, and society has progressed to the point where over breeding is more often the problem.

So on the basis of Anthropology which has shown many different forms of marriage, On the basis of general social health, On the basis of the power of society to decide reasonably where its best interest lies, and on the basis of religions that do not follow their law or the customs they claim to support, but support only what they feel natural; I support GL marriage for GL people.
Debate Round No. 1


christianity is relevant cuz god watches over u and he is everywhere and is very real. all ppls who allow gay marrige wer struck down by gods foorce, nativ americans wer stupid n retarded n they dont worship the god of the holy bible. god sent the whitte man 2 kill indians cuz they dont worship god and they allow gay marrige wich is a very bad sin and shuld be illegal.

gay ppl rape our kids cuz they are pedophils lok up the fact
if we allow gay marrige gay ppl will be encurrage to rape kids n infring on their rights. we need 2 prosecute sin again cuz we ar a christin nation and have alwys been.

i think i make my point


If the argument is that Christianity is relevant, I can hardly disagree. Religion is certainly relevant to those who practice it. But we do not govern ourselves by religion and the establishment clause should protect government from the undue influence of any sect or religion. If government has to date been under the influence of religion we are worse off for it. The priests and ministers never guide their flocks out of prejudice and ignorance, but rather reflect that prejudice and ignorance. Science and Anthropology both show that homosexuality is common, and can even point to certain environmental stresses on the mother that will make homosexuality in her child much more likely. If you wish to make homosexuality less common, do not make law to reflect your prejudice, but make reality conform to your desire. Make sure you have done everything possible to make certain mothers do not suffer a lot of fear, stress, or malnutrition in the course of their pregnancies, and you will see homosexuality and certain forms of mental illness reduced.

The answer of the right is always a law. They think nothing of the use of coercion. What they forget is that law needs popular support to be enforced. It is not law men and attorneys who enforce law, but the people; and you find this is easy where you are in a majority and can simply drive homosexuals out of your communities and into the cities. And because homosexuality has been treated as aberrant behavior, you do find that behavior associated with drug use and other delinquent activity. You also find homosexuality associated with genius and creativity, but this is true also of schizophrenia which like homosexuality may have a prenatal element.

If you could murder every genius as the right would do to raise the general level of their intelligence they would certainly not kill every homosexual, but they would kill many. And this is true of killing homosexual as the right would certainly do if given a free hand. They would kill many a genius without killing them all. The point is that if you killed all homosexuals there would be more tomorrow. They are born that way, and most know it from a very early age. What is more, all sin involves a consciousness of wrong, and St. Paul said this in regard to the Gentiles that when aware only of their own law they were not in conflict with the law of Moses. People can only do as they see fit, and it is not for society to chose who people will love. The one true commandment given to every Christian by Christ is to love one another. And I am not confusing sexuality with love, but a little more social love and a little less of that Old Testament hatred would go a long way. In the words of Jesus, he came to fulfill the law, and in this fashion he freed us from that formal relationship with God.

It is good that society encourages all people to love and find some monogamy, because the one thing true of all intimate behavior is the potential to transmit disease. Same sex marriage to the extent that it encourages a single partner relationship is a asset to public health generally. Where religion conflicts with society generally, it is the religions who should give way. Remember that the Christians were good citizens in all respect except in refusing to offer a sacrifice to the Genius of the Emperor; that is, his guiding spirit. This was a danger to the whole of society because upon that genius the welfare of the society was thought to depend. The genius of this people has decided that same sex marriage is not only acceptable, but to be encouraged as all exclusive relationships should be encouraged. It is mentally, physically, and morally healthy to have exclusive relationships, and this is true of all people.

If the religious really believe that sin should be treated as crime, they should begin with themselves. Consider only the ten commandments. If a person steals, it is certain they coveted their neighbors goods, so give them a double dose of religious prosecution. If a person commits adultery it is certain they coveted their neighbors wife, so give them a double dose of rectification. You religious people do not do as you know you should, and neither do you do as you say. People do not go to church to demonstrate their goodness which they might demonstrate in manifold fashions. Rather they go to profess their goodness and hide their sin beneath a cloak of social acceptance. All church people know those beside them are rotten, and if they are honest they know they are rotten. None of us ever suffers but with an awareness of our own guilt. But still you will not treat your own sin as crime, but wish to treat others sins as crime because their motivation is foreign to you. When are you going to treat your sins as crimes which you forgive only to be forgiven, and never see yourselves rectified. My point here is simple. A civil right, an equal civil right- can most certainly be considered as a property and has, and that is why the assertion that some rights are inalienable, meaning they cannot be sold. But equality lies at the heart of democracy, and the privilege to deny equal civil rights is anathema to democracy; but behind all of this is the covetousness of equal civil rights. You do not want simply to take the right of marriage, but all fundamental freedoms of democracy; and this should not be permitted. If these homosexuals will not tell you who to love, you cannot tell them; and that is fair and just.
Debate Round No. 2


BubbaJoe forfeited this round.


If there is no argument then let me make my final point. The Native Americans accepted Homosexuality and homosexual relationships carried on as marriage. They might laugh at a man playing the part of a wife as being too lazy to hunt for himself, but it was all good natured, and people were free within their societies to do almost anything if no physical harm could be show by it. When we think of savages we think of heartless, cruel, and vengeful people. Clearly, they were not inclined to stand in the way of love as this would be an exercise in futility and madness.

To stand in the way of love, even when that impediment is slight is more than any modern person should accept. To find love is an impossible task. I have come closer than anyone on the planet to pure perfect love and still it eludes me. We are not all the same, and though we pride ourselves on our individuality what we enforce is a cruel homogeneity. We all buy off the rack, but then step outa line and see how fast the thought police show up.

I went to an Ani Difranco concert in Traverse City two nights back, and after the concert I went to the bar around the corner with a real good, if jazzy band, and there were two and some times three sets of girls who had been at the concert dancing with each other. And I saw one of those girls who was like a circus girl dancing with her girl friend, and she was beautiful. The way she would move, all sexy and fine, and carve shapes in the air with her hands was wonderfully graceful. I had to go. The impediment to me even saying hello were great, and yet my gaze was drawn to her.

From the common perspective, the merely normal girls were simply beautiful, and when they would twirl each other around, or hold their friends close and clutch their butts, I saw it with a pleasure. And there was a man from a table of hetero couples who obviously knew his very pretty girl in an intimate way, and while they were slow dancing he reached right down, across her as s and held his finger all between the sweet spot of her thighs for a longing moment. I could no better paint a scene of my desires than was painted by the love of the dancers and the music.

Love is a dangerous game, impossible to win. Look at me and my small person dancing with her friend. I wanted to tell her how beautiful she danced, but in that small bar the distance to her was covered with impediments, and I had to leave; but to see her beauty and not to acknowledge it put me in the debt of a stranger. What would she have thought of this old me, maybe twice her age loving her for her spirit, for the art she drew on the darkness of the dance floor. How many freaks does that girl meet only wanting to bed her to say they did so because they are freaky? I am not freaky unless it is freakish to be able to see beauty, and feel love, and adore the person behind the vision of it. What if that little girl was the love of my life? What if all we had to get over was the appearance of strangeness, of old with young, and large with small. Is it any different with girls with girls, and boys with boys? It is not the greater triumph when people overcome great impediments to love. The tragedy is that society places so many impediments in the way of love while it is becoming ever more loveless.

Let me dwell on the bed of love. You know that love makes marriage as much as love makes all life possible and happy. While I address my words to love, remember that love is not a thing, not an object, and not a concept. Love is a person, that person, THE person you desire and are whole with. Who will tell me whom to love? Who will tell me whom to marry. Who will find in me the fidelity to make love work its magic. Who pleads upon the part of love and will you be it's champion? Love is the champion of us all, and our lovers are our souls revealed. Can we deny who we are in the necessity to deny our love? Every lover saves her lover's life. If you would teach my ears to thrill at music that thrills me not then tell me who to love and whom to marry...

Dark is the grave path that grinds all hearts to gravel like the dirt they are interred into. Joy is the life found in love and from that joy bounds all strength. If I had a second life it would be to love devoted. I do not recognize this thing called love as real, but I bow before the reality love makes of people. Where is that person not found in love not found stronger and twice their former selves? Love, true love if you be made by love are made smooth and fine and good. What cruel God of hate makes people wait on love till life has passed away? No myth or magic ever returns a taken day, but youth is the life in love. I direct my obsequy at hate, and spell my charms for love, and if chance should let me see her dance no more will never preach impasse, but I will focus my will to over come, and deliver honors due. In the being of the other, the lover is the matter, the beginning of the universe and the purpose of infinity. Will humanity be shrunk to serve a small and heartless god? Love is all- the beginning and the end of all, and it is the making of human kind.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Hanna_Marie258 8 months ago
You are a homophobic bastard. There's nothing wrong with it. Its what people are and if you cant accept them then don't bother your being a immature prick. you don't see us saying being straight is wrong. I'm bisexual, but that doesn't mean I cheat I stay with a person, I'm dating a girl I love her and only her. everyone can love who they love that's not a big deal. And at least they can adopt babies that straight parents don't want( bc they were stupid and didn't use protection)..In the United States such professional organizations as the American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American Sociological Association, American Anthropological Association, American Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Nursing, and National Association of Social Workers have said that claims that the legal recognition of marriage for same"sex couples undermines the institution of marriage and harms children are inconsistent with the scientific evidence which supports the conclusions: that homosexuality is a normal expression of human sexuality that is not chosen; that gay and lesbian people form stable, committed relationships essentially equivalent to heterosexual relationships; that same-sex parents are no less capable than opposite-sex parents to raise children; that no civilization or viable social order depends on an institution of exclusive heterosexual marriage; and that the children of same-sex parents are no less psychologically healthy and well-adjusted than children of opposite-sex parents.The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) is one of the leading advocacy groups in support of same-sex marriage. According to the HRC's website, "Many same-sex couples want the right to legally marry because they are in love"many, in fact, have spent the last 10, 20 or 50 years with that person"and they want to honor their relationship in the greatest way our society has to offer, by making a public commitment to stand together in good ti
Posted by Fido 1 year ago
What makes any one believe this bubbajoe is serious? If this is was passes for debate, I will pass in the future and stick to forums. He couldn't lose better if he were trying, so he must be trying. I don't know if he is gay; but I think his avatar is gay. Maybe he and his avatar could get married.
Posted by Garfield 1 year ago
PRO, you need to work on your grammar, that can greatly influence your votes.
Posted by BubbaJoe 1 year ago
christianity is real u shuld do ur own research bfore you say that. its not that simple atheist
Posted by debatefox 1 year ago
his reasoning is so stupid. first off Christianity is fake. just think about it, a big man in the sky decides one day, "hhm im bored" and poof he creates life. stupid it is like believing in magic. it was created by accent swindlers to get money from people. make sure to bring up the point that straight people rape kids to.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by o0jeannie0o 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Spelling- Obv. Conduct con due to forfeiture, Sources that pro used where unscientific, opinion based, and openly bias. Arguments to Con, "because god" isn't an argument.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year 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: Pro ff a round
Vote Placed by Paleophyte 1 year 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's spelling and grammar were atrocious. Arguments go to Con as Pro spent more time preaching that debating. Pro forfeited the final round and made some extremely prejudicial comments so conduct goes to Con as well.