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

gay marrige should be legalizzed

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: 8/21/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,524 times Debate No: 36879
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (21)
Votes (1)




rules first round i will not argue but the opponent doesnt get the second last round all other round are free to wright wathe ever you want .


Nice Topic! Look forward to debating against you, about how gay marriages should not be legalised.
Debate Round No. 1


good luck english isnt my first languaage so excuse me and i would like this debatte to end today not wait 1 day for each argument,but you can take as long as you wish.
if two adult peopol feel love betwen theme self they should have the coice to get married .
anal sex can provoque infectius deseses but why onli use that as an argument against gay peopel and not man and women.


I thank my opponent for their reasons, and will now proceed with my own.

Gay marriages should definitely not be allowed. Not many consider how humans are not allowed to marry their first cousin, animals, objects, or multiple amounts of other individuals. The physical word "marriage" is defined as "The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognised by law, by which they become husband and wife." Gay marriages are impure, and simply wrong, many would agree and say gay marriages aren't even proper marriages.

My opponent has stated that if two adults love each other, then they should have the choice to marry. If it really is true love, then, it would be forever lasting, and it wouldn't have been statistically proved that nearly every gay marriage has led to a divorce, for various reasons. So, if you want gay marriages to be legalised, then you are wanting to see more broken families, leading to less unity occurring, and are being disrespectful to the value and word, "marriage".As Our society's aim to benefit and advance the society, as well as the future generations. Gay marriages would mean that in the future it would be seen as the right thing to marry objects and animals, as animals are 'a living thing' which is seen as an illusion to a person, and is not true love. Gay marriages are an illusion of what they believe to be true love but it is wrong, scientifically and religiously proved. Once we allow gay marriages to occur, once we transgress the one-man, one-woman threshold as the definition of marriage, there is no logical place to stop. It is inevitable that restricting polygamy will soon be labeled a form of discrimination, along with attempts to restrain any other form of coupling. In fact, the homosexual activist who led the charge to declassify homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973 is now openly advocating the legitimacy of bestiality (as long, of course, as the animal "consents").

Also, for those, gay people, who choose to have children, after their gay marriage, nearly everything is bad, expect freedom for their children, which in some cases, is also bad. Children need both the love of their mother and father. Same-sex does not provide that, in fact, it confuses them, and if, for the sake of fake love amid two people, their children are more confused about the environment around them, then others, then gay marriages should not be legalised. Some of the reasons to confuse these children would include, how men and women are fundamentally different from each other, in every cell of their bodies, meaning that a father has a unique contribution to make to the lives of his children, as does the child's mum. "Opposite sex parenting gives children examples of both masculinity and femininity in action, and the complementary interaction of these qualities enables them to grow up with a healthy and balanced view of life and relationships.' The good thing about straight marriages is that children learn how to relate to both sexes later in life by relating to both a mum and a dad as well as observing the way in which they relate to each other, whereas in same-sex marriage, sexual confusion will only increase within the minds of children, as well as encouraging dangerous sexual experimentation among the nation's youth. Children growing up in homosexual households have been shown to be more likely to experiment sexually, and as same-sex unions (as well as cohabitation) become the norm, this will only become more pronounced, producing more heartache, more children born out of wedlock, and more sexually transmitted diseases.Same-sex marriage definitely isn't in the best interest of children. And although we empathise with those homosexuals who long to be married and parent children, we mustn't allow our compassion for them to trump our compassion for children. In a contest between the desires of some homosexuals and the needs of all children, we can't allow the children to lose.

Thank you, apologies for the rough mistakes.



Debate Round No. 2


I thank my opponent for making the opening statement

Vocabulary to get clear:
a legally, religiously, or socially sanctioned union of persons who commit to one another, forming a familial and economic bond:Anthropologists say that some type of marriage has been found inevery society, past and present.
the act of committing
the act of committing, pledging, or engaging oneself.
engagement; involvement:
ex:They have a sincere commitment to religion.

Marriage is a commitment pledging to each other,marriages fail in straight marriages as they do in gay-marriage but this isn"t a reason to bann gay marriage as little that it is to bann straight marriage.divorce rates have grown over time,but even knowing this amny coupels are ready to risk it all in marriage,if they get divorce they coud lose homes hafe to share everything they have but they are ready to risk it all because they sincerely belief that they are marring the love of there lifes .
Sure there are people how only mary for money but it always has been like that so think about that why should to people that marry for money have more right to live together then a gay coupel how honestly love each other.
So that"s my answer to my opponents Remarque that gay coupels shoud not get married because it is not real love.
My opponent makes a Remarque that if marriage isn"t only for men and women we would have passed a point where it would be okay to marry almost anything.
First do you really belief that ?
In our society marriage without consent is Tabo ,so how is an animal,an object be supposed to marry each other .how are they even supposed to give their concept .
I don"t now about you but I have never seen object talk or an other animal than humans.Of course there is a stopping point marriage is a signed it"s a document .
Objects,animals and children (pedophilie) aren"t allowed to sign legal documents, so no we will not have people marring animals or objects.
Marriage can only occur: between human adults that can sign a official document.
Polygamie is acceptebel in other societies try to fashion marriage in a Christian manneris diminishing the other religions.laws shoud not be made according to religion.
My opponent also makes a point that gay marriages shoud not be abel to adopt children .thats an other debate entirely the question of this debate is should gay coupels be abel to marry not adopt children.
Sources:I will put the sources of all my claims in my final statement.


Firstly, I know English isn't your first language, but please, do revise over what you are saying, or at least use spell-checker, as I have had to re-read your arguments multiple times, in order to simply comprehend what you are trying to get across, still, thank you. I will now proceed with my arguments, to further, refute.

Firstly, the definition of marriage, is, the formal union of a man, and a women, typically recognised by law. What I intend to say is that your source is '' however my sources are two oxford dictionaries. I believe the definition you hold, is in fact, the only definition that supports your position of this debate. Other then that, browse on merrian-webster's dictionary, Google itself, when you search 'marriage define', as well as Collins, they all state, something close to "the formal union of a man, and a women, typically recognised by law". This is just for clarification.

Just for elucidation, are you trying to purpose to me, that the divorces occurring in straight marriages, are the same amount as gay, because if so, this statement is wrong. I understand that there ARE divorces occurring in straight marriages, but the amount in gay, are incomparable. Below, I have an image which shows the divorce rate of gay marriages,[1] in legalised places. I don't know, what you are trying to say, but compare this, with how in USA, the marriage rate in 6.8 per 1, 000 total population, and the divorce rate, as 3.6 per 1, 000 population within straight marriages [2].


Divorces occur because of some problem(s) occurring in the two persons relationship, now, as we see how high the rates for the gay marriages are, I can prove that gay marriages do not have true love, just an illusion of it.

Secondly, my opponent, also states, that gay marriages would not lead to people wanting to marry objects, or multiple people, or animals, with some strange reasons. Think more advancing Ly, if people think gay marriages are okay, and they change the laws through democracy, and they do what they feel is right, then in the future, why not marry an animal? It is alive, it holds a lot of value in this world, but... I feel true love for it, now, we may, luckily, still have the sense to know that this is wrong, but in another 100 years, if gay marriages are accepted, then this will be debated on, if you go back in the fifth century, you may say that their thinking wasn't as advanced as it is now, but you say that you were gay... they would treat you as a special child, simply because gay marriages, are just an illusion of love, no religion, states that gay marriages are right, expect for atheism, but they don't state its right to be gay. I mean to say, that we see gay Christians. Now, as they are Christians, I will use the bible as a source, which states gay marriages are wrong.

Finally, my opponent states that my final point was irrelevant to this debate. Now, what I am trying to say is that because of gay marriages, children are getting negative and confused understandings of how we should live our lives. Children, like me, 13-year old kids like me, may get the wrong influences, they won't understand things. Do you want children to get a bad impact on their lives, to get negative influences, the kids that are the future of this world, or, do you want gay people to marry and ruin everyone else's lives?

Thank you. Apologises for the mistakes.



Debate Round No. 3


I will start by refuting my opponents claims and statements.
Your definition of the word marriage is wrong,some countries do have gay marriage.
Like : Netherlands: On April 1, 2001 the Netherlands became the first country in the world to legalise same-sex marriage, with the same rights as heterosexuals. Includes the right to adopt.
Belgium: Homosexual couples in Belgium have almost the same rights as heterosexuals. They won the right to marry in 2003 and in 2006 parliament voted into law a bill allowing homosexual couples to adopt children.
Spain: In 2005 Spain became the third member of the European Union to pass a law allowing same-sex marriages. Gay couples can adopt children, whether they are married or not.
Canada: Canada adopted a national law allowing gays to marry and adopt in July 2005, though most provinces had already allowed same-sex unions before that date.
South Africa: The country legalised same-sex unions and adoptions by gay couples in November 2006, becoming the first African nation to do so.
Norway: A 2009 law allowed homosexuals to marry and adopt children. Civil partnerships have existed in the country for 20 years.
Sweden: Sweden's homosexuals have been allowed to wed in religious or civil ceremonies since May 2009.
Portugal: Under a 2010 law Portugal legalised gay marriage, while excluding the right to adoption.
Iceland: Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir married her long-time partner in June 2010 as a new law legalising homosexual marriages came into force. Same-sex couples who have lived together for at least five years have had the right to adopt children since 2006.
Argentina: Gays in Argentina became the first on the South American continent to be able to wed and adopt, after legislation passed on July 14, 2010.
Denmark: Denmark, the first country in the world to allow gay couples to enter into civil unions in 1989, voted overwhelmingly in favour of allowing homosexuals to marry in the state Evangelical Lutheran Church in June 2012.
Uruguay: Uruguay voted in April to allow same-sex marriages nationwide, making it only the second Latin American country to do so.
New Zealand: New Zealand on April 17 became the first Asia-Pacific country to legalise same-sex marriage, after a decades-long campaign.

Partial Rules
Gay couples can marry in nine US states, as well as in the capital Washington, while parts of Mexico also allow same-sex marriage.
Brazil this month gave a de facto green light to same-sex marriages after its National Council of Justice ruled that government offices could issue marriage licenses to gay couples without having to wait for Congress to pass a law allowing gay unions.

Expected Soon
Britain: Same-sex couples in Britain have had the right to live in civil partnerships since 2005 but cannot marry. British lawmakers voted in February in favour of controversial legislation allowing gay marriage, despite fierce opposition from members of Prime Minister David Cameron's Conservative party.
The bill has since been scrutinised by a committee of lawmakers and will be debated again in the lower House of Commons on Monday, followed by a vote on Tuesday. If the vote passes, the bill will go before the upper chamber, the House of Lords, before becoming law.

Civil Unions
A number of other countries have adopted laws that recognise civil partnerships and give couples more or less the same rights as heterosexuals.
Countries to have recognised civil unions without
yet accepting gay marriage include Germany (2001), Finland (2002), the Czech Republic (2006), Switzerland (2007) and Colombia and Ireland (both 2011)
If there are countries were gay marriages are allowed the oxford definition Is wrong,because it is ignoring the fact that in some countries gay marriages is a thing.
Now going to your statements of the divorce rates.i do not argue with you that most of gay people break- up. Does divorce rates mean that the gay coupels that last live times aren"t true love?Should we bann the lottery there is a huge chance that we will not gain any money why do we bann everything that is probely not going to work?We do not do that because it would take the choise away from the people.
There are many reasons why straight coupels divorce less.
Children:parents do not want to lose the custody of their children,they do not want the children to live without both parents.
So many coupels stay together even if there isn"t any love between each other they do not want to lose their children .
Property split there are many states who have very draconic laws for divorce given almost everything to the women.
Gay coupels usually have less things bonding them to each other like children.
So if gay coupels survive the test of time their love has been proven.
My opponent does a remark that people are going to want to marry animals,objects and multiple reasons.and I shall explain why this cannot happen if we legalize gay marriage.I shall explain why this will not be possible with the legalization of gay marriage.
Animals:animals cant sign legall they can not sign a marriage certificate.
Objects:objects have no rights to sign any legall document ore have the ability to do it(yet).
Polyamory:would be an option and I do not se why it would be wrong.if you don"t agree with me whe can have a debate on that.
My opponent states that people will change laws to democracy to make such marriages legal.Democracy requires the majoritie of votes if people in the future see that as right and they are the majority then who is the minority to oppose what the majority wants.
In 100 years we will be most likely be dead ,so why should we have a say in the politics of the future if we are dead.
My opponent says that no religion accepts gay marriage what is false(atheism is not a religion ).
Religions who accept gay marriage:
-Christianity :
Support and affirmation of marriage rights for same-sex couples increasingly come from certain Christian denominations that are theologically considered liberal. Some examples of religious organizations voicing their support for marriage equality include Metropolitan Community Church, the United Church of Christ "Marriage Equality and the UCC"., theChristian Church (Disciples of Christ),[1] the Episcopal Church of the United States, the Anglican Church of Canada, the Evangelical Lutheran Church In America and the Unitarian Universalists church which has long supported the rights of gays and lesbians to marry both in the church and through the state.[2][3] Numerous progressive congregations and organizations within mainline Christian denominations, that have not yet officially voiced official support for marriage equality, have spoken out themselves in support of equal marriage rights in the church and through the state.[4]
-Liberal Buddhists
-Liberal Hindus
Native American religion
Forbidding gay marriage is oppression of these religions,basing marriages laws one Christianity is wrong. The united states have been founded one the pricipels of church and saate separation.

My new argument:
Not all humans are man and woman there are uni-sex peopel .should those peopel be allowed to marry.of course they should.saying that marriage should be betwen a man and a women is ignoring that not all humans are even man or women.
Note:Saying that kids need the love of both parents to be normal is saying that kids who live in a divorced coupel are not normal,kids who one of their parent is dead are not normal,saying that children who lived there entire childhood are not normal and does that sound right to any one.Childreen do not get confused by seeing gay coupels my mother had many gay friends I have many gay friends that does not mean that I got confused.I am heterosexual after having had many encounters with gay people as I was before nowing them.What confuses children is live their hole live without knowing of the existenz of gay marriage and then finding out that gay coupels exist.What they think :I did not now that gay people exist maybe I am one of them?
That is all for now.


Thank you, Pro, for your arguments and rebuttal, albeit, I get extremely distracted from your grammatical errors, instead of focusing in the actual points, that you purpose, and therefore, comprehending, what you are saying, becomes harder. Please make an effort to improve your grammar, even if English isn't your first language. Thank you.

I will now proceed, with defending my arguments, and stating some new reasons.

'your definition of the word marriage is wrong, some countries do have gay marriages'

Firstly, the amount of countries that don't accept gay marriages, largely, overtake the number that do. Since, majority rules, this definition of mine, overtakes your facts, because this definition is valid to most countries. Anyhow, your list, doesn't prove that gay marriages should be allowed, just because some countries do it, doesn't mean the rest should copy.

'Now going to your statements of the divorce rates.i do not argue with you that most of gay people break -up Does divorce rates mean that the gay coupels that last live times aren"t true love?'

Are you trying to say that the affects of straight divorced couples overtake gay, in this argument?

Anyhow, the number of grammatical errors, really distract me, but, seriously? I don't think you know why majority of the world's divorces occur? They occur because couples argue, they start disliking each other, etc. this is the reason, by far, most of the time, as to why we see divorces. And as I proved the divorce rates within gay marriages, are extremely high, comparing to straight marriages, it proves that gay, isn't true love. You used examples of how we should ban the lottery, because there is a huge chance that we will not gain any money, etc. In regards to that, we do this for entertainment purposes, anyhow, that is not related to this topic in any shape or form.

Also, you have stated "There are many reasons why straight couples divorce less..." Your first reason was on children, in regards to this, there is this thing such as, "On Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, my child is staying at my house, and on the rest of the days he can stay with he's father" You also stated, that 'so many couples stay together even if there isn't any love between each other, because they do not want to lose their children", what do you mean by "lose your children?" Still, they are thinking of their child's future, unlike gay couples, where they confuse their 'sane' child. You also stated some other reasons which, don't prove why gay marriages should be legalised, so I won't rebut against them.

My opponent, also states, why people wouldn't want to marry animals and objects. In 100 years, we would have modified our politics, to benefit us. If gay marriage is thought to be right, then, why not animals, "I love my dog, I feel a sexual connection with him, I feel true love, and you can't change that", this is exactly, the reasons why gradually, marrying objects and animals, should be alright. Gay marriages happen, why not marry animals? True love only happens with one person, polyamory marriages don't hold true love, or the value of 'marriage'.

'Democracy requires the majoritie of votes if people in the future see that as right and they are the majority then who is the minority to oppose what the majority wants.' We have the sense to see that there are no 'pros' in gay marriages and the 'cons' overtake, by far. This is wrong, and if we have the sense to stop this, then we should.

You also said, "In 100 years we will most likely be dead..." I meant to say our generations, which follow, and develop today's ethics.

Also, don't mess with the fact, that Christianity doesn't allow gay marriages, the bible strictly goes against this, as proved in Romans chapter 1: 26-27 '26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature;27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another,men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.'and many other verses. Not just the bible goes against this, but history goes against gay marriages (1). Hinduism? I am a Hindu, a Brahman, and I know Hinduism is strongly against this, in fact, no religion agrees with your false statement. (2) Number 2, is just one website that supports my argument.

Also, in regards to your 'new argument' of course they're allowed to be gay, they have no choice. But people that are fully females, or males, can do the right thing, and not be gay.

Finally, in regards to your 'note', children follow their parents ethics, gay marriages just confuse people, and for further detail on this argument, go to final argument in round three. And in regards to your comment which considers kids with single mum's, and dad's. Firstly, we, as a community, go against single parents, secondly, but, the pros of single parents are better than gay parents. One example, to prove my point, is that sexual confusion only occurs in gay parents, kids think, "but my friend's parents are straight, should I love boys or girls... or both" kids become confused, and don't know who they are. In this war, amid gay couples and kids. Kids hold more value. Besides, kids need both the love of mothers and fathers, because, mothers are more attached to kids than fathers, then, on the other hand, fathers help, kids, to learn to be detached, this is why, we go against single parents, but gay marriages are just worse. Anyhow, you argument (referring, to the 'note', one), itself, doesn't prove that gay marriages should be allowed.

Thank you. Apologises for the mistakes. :)

Debate Round No. 4


leandro.sanchez forfeited this round.


Oh... how I was going to give a bang... at the end, but seeing as my opponent has forfeited the final round. Please exclude judging this round, when you are voting, as I won't post any new arguments.

Thank you.

Vote fairly (sarcasm much). :)
Debate Round No. 5
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by boom101 2 years ago
aww.. yeah! Good Luck Pro! 96 days to go
Posted by boom101 3 years ago
ya... how about you post yours... eh?
Posted by leandro.sanchez 3 years ago
okay no hard feelings now post you argument.
Posted by boom101 3 years ago
I do have humour.. like, when things are actually funny... and when you can tell, things are funny... because, that's not humour, its just you saying something and going, "I'm kidding"

I hate you for not liking maths...

I was only joking...
i actually used that as an example, no hard feelings :)
Posted by leandro.sanchez 3 years ago
english rules over math!
and the math thing was to be taken as a joke.
dont you get any humour.
Posted by boom101 3 years ago
I learn the language, German, as a subject for LOTE, at school, nothing much. Also, I don't care what you have against mathematics, it is a great subject, believe it or not.
Posted by leandro.sanchez 3 years ago
this debatte has become personal.
ah und ich hab in dein profil gelesen du kanst deutsch sprechen ist das wahr oder lugst du uns nur an?
Posted by boom101 3 years ago
Yes.. thank you, even if you grammatical mistakes are distracting, I managed, also, back off, you have no right to judge who is irritating... I have showed patience, to your consistent mistakes, they're irritating, but you don't see me complaining, in a rude manner, also, I'll post my debate, in 7 hours, or less, and don't call me a good English teacher, mathematics rules!!!

Thank you
Posted by leandro.sanchez 3 years ago
i said the voters shoud base there votes on our arguments and not on previous biasis exept the first vote.
did you understood it now ,well you would make a good english teacher because you are freaking irritating!
and i also asked if you woud post you new argument soon.did you understand it now?
Posted by boom101 3 years ago
Still, don't understand... speak proper English... maybe, that will help...
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by rajun 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: ff and con had better grammar and spellings...