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

Gay Marriage Is Absolutely Okay

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/14/2018 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,698 times Debate No: 118557
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (53)
Votes (0)




The subject of gay marriage is one that has been hotly debated for decades, Ever since the early 1980s when the rates of young people coming out as LGBTQ+ steeply increased. This is an issue that affects up to 10% of the American population today, Including myself. It's a question of fundamental human rights: in our very Declaration of Independence, Jefferson cited Locke's trinity of rights: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, That all Men are created equal, That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, That among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. " Doesn't the right to marry fall under the right of pursuit of happiness? And, In such, Doesn't barring such a right then violate the core values of the United States itself?

Let's unpack this further. In my experience, A typical argument against gay marriage is heavy with religious implications. However, What people seem to be missing is that religion has no place in politics. Separation of church and state dictates that policy cannot be influenced by religion. Despite the need of the legislators in Congress to serve their constituents, A logical argument against gay marriage cannot be made without any religious connotations. The vehement hatred of LGBTQ+ people by many right-winged Christians, In fact, Is in direct conflict with the most central of Christian beliefs: to love all equally, And to not judge, As judging is God's job alone. The Bible itself only mentions what could be inferred to be homosexuality two or three times, And each of these instances could well be understood as other sins, Such as pedophilia (which is most definitely NOT okay, And does NOT fall under the umbrella of LGBTQ+ - the difference here being that pedophilia, By definition, Can never exist between two consenting adults - it is always between an adult and a minor, And such relations are completely unacceptable. ) I am a Christian myself, And am not intending to disparage Christianity, But simply point out a flaw in the rhetoric of anti-LGBTQ+ Christians.

Now, I will begin to tackle the points most broadly used among pro-traditional values advocates, The first of which being that gay marriage is a slippery slope to marriage between people and animals, Or children, Or machines, Etc. This is an easy mistake to make if one's view of marriage is a man and his object of affection, And not two consenting, Loving adults invested in a long-term relationship. Here is why the slippery slope argument is flawed: Children, Animals, And machines cannot consent (something which I mentioned above). Therefore, Even going into hypothetical situations here is unnecessary. If one party cannot consent, There isn't even a possibility of marriage.

Another argument I encounter often is that gay marriage is immoral. Why? Why is gay marriage immoral? The answer I receive is most likely railing on religion. "Being gay is a sin. " Okay. I understand that the Bible can be interpreted that way. However, As aforementioned, Religion and politics are mutually exclusive in our country. The other answer, Which I receive less often, Is that it's not natural. On the contrary, Homosexuality is completely natural. Penguin populations have been known to exhibit rampant homosexuality, Especially among male penguins. Elephant herds have been observed engaging in homosexual mounting and petting, Such as entwining trunks. In fact, Up to 45% of sexual relations in captive Asian elephants is same-sex. According to Yale, There have been about 500 species of animals recorded to engage in homosexuality. In essence, Homosexuality is as natural as sex itself.

On to the third point I counter: that gay marriage goes against tradition. Sixty years ago, Civil rights went against tradition. A hundred years ago, Female suffrage went against tradition. Democracy itself went against tradition when the United States won the Revolution and separated itself from the British monarchy. America was born into going against tradition. Why should this be any different? Equality goes against tradition, But why should this be an issue? Allowing people of every demographic to have the rights they were assigned at birth shouldn't be controversial. So why should long-standing tradition be a valid argument against gay marriage? That's right: it isn't.

Point #4! "Children raised by heterosexual parents are emotionally better-adjusted than those raised by same-sex parents. " There is absolutely zero data supporting this - in fact, Studies have shown the opposite! A 2013 Australian study showed that "On measures of general health and family cohesion, Children aged 5-17 years with same-sex attracted parents showed a significantly better score when compared to Australian children from all backgrounds and family contexts. For all other health measures, There were no statistically significant differences. " A 2013 American study showed that "An estimated 16, 000 same-sex couples are raising more than 22, 000 adopted children in the U. S. , And these findings indicate that these children will likely fare no differently, As a result of their family type, Than those being raised by heterosexual parents. " Finally, A study conducted over 30 years concluded that "Extensive data available from more than 30 years of research reveal that children raised by gay and lesbian parents have demonstrated resilience with regard to social, Psychological, And sexual health despite economic and legal disparities and social stigma. Many studies have demonstrated that children's well-being is affected much more by their relationships with their parents, Their parents' sense of competence and security, And the presence of social and economic support for the family than by the gender or the sexual orientation of their parents. " So, No. Children raised by same sex parents aren't put at a disadvantage.

Those were some of my thoughts regarding gay marriage. Feel free to debate! I'd love to hear what y


I haven't really though about this much so maybe I can learn something from this debate. I will keep this concise.

[1] I do believe in separation of church and state; However, You're not allowed to eat pork in a mosque, How would you feel if the state legalized that, Only to have a bunch of white males roam into mosques to eat barque pork? Wouldn't that be the state encroaching on a religion? The analogy here seems synonymous with the gay marriage issue.

[2] What is the purpose of marriage? It's a vow to God that you will remain faithful to your other half, What weight does such a vow hold, If the one making the vow is not religious? I can't understand why a gay man would want to partake in a religious practice that he knows discourages his practices.
I've always been a tolerant individual and would never be willing to deface religious practices no matter how backwards they seem. It therefore follows, That if one wishes to be considered tolerant, One must respect other peoples beliefs and not deface their religion.

[3] Being gay is not immoral in my opinion, But I do understand why it was considered a sin. Population growth is an important aspect to maintaining a society, Just look at Japan, Their largest problem is the current population decline which will have dire consequences in the future. Considering population growth is such an important part of society, I understand why ancient peoples outlawed homosexuality.
This argument is not relevant to the modern day, But suggests the reason for condemning homosexuality was founded on a noble principle, Rather than, A hateful one.

I believe if we want people to be tolerant of gay people, We need to be consistant in our beliefs and be tolerant ourselves.
Debate Round No. 1


After reading your points, I have a few counterpoints to make.

As said by Block19, A few of your arguments made little sense. Eating pork in a mosque isn't illegal, But it's extremely disrespectful to the religion as a whole. Not eating pork is something the entire religion does because the Qu'ran explicitly says so - the Bible makes vague references to homosexuality at best, And it's the interpretation that lends itself to homophobia - not the Bible itself. Basing an argument about the civil rights of an entire demographic on this isn't valid in the slightest.

For your second point: Christians are not the only people who get married. Hindus get married, Muslims get married, People of every religion get married. Atheist people get married. Religion doesn't affect the validity of a marriage, And that rule applies to same-sex marriage. Regardless of whether or not a gay person is religious, And regardless of whether or not that religion happens to be Christianity or not, The marriage is still legally recognized. If Christians disagree with other religions, Then by your logic, People of every other religion shouldn't be able to get married, Because it doesn't "respect their beliefs. " That logic is very flawed.

For your third point: if you sincerely believe that hundreds of years of persecution, Slander, And oppression was based on overpopulation, That's your problem. Because that's entirely incorrect. However, That is not the issue to be addressed. If someone were homosexual, They wouldn't have reproduced anyways, And plenty of heterosexual people don't reproduce, So in this situation why are only gay people discriminated against? Discrimination is based in hatred and hatred alone. That is why gay people have been denied rights for so long.

I look forward to your next points! I'm enjoying having this debate :)



I think it's important to briefly talk about how my stance is not one of hatred, My stance is only of discrimination, But we discriminate against people all the time.
I used my last point as one to highlight the origins of anti-gay sentiments. Such sentiments could be used to encourage (forgive my language) less faggatory within societies that needed men to not only reproduce, But to fight without any homosexual distractions. We also have a problem with more men being raped than women, If you would look to the prison system you'd see this is true, In an effort to stop gays from raping men, It's important to grasp the issue by the balls and get it under control, But I have digressed, We're talking specificity about allowing gay people to do a historically non-gay thing.

Straight syndromme

-A straight man would not want to do gay things.
-A Jew would not want to do Islamic things.
-A cat would not want to do dog things.

Why is it then that gay people, Want to do anti-gay things? Specifically marriage, Which has been an anti-gay thing for a very long time. Could it be an attack on freedom of religion, Whereby gay people will not allow the sanctity of marriage to be between a man and a woman, Out of spite?

The argument from boar.

Gays are trying to make a statement, Every man has the same rights, Gay rights, Are special rights. I could claim I am sexually attracted to wild boar and would like to marry one, Unfortunately for me, Marrying a wild boar and attempting to make love to the boar is illegal, Even if the boar consents, Why? Because we're worried about the animals rights activists claiming it's wrong, When by gay logic, One should be allowed to marry whatever they want. All gay logic can be applied to animal shagging logic.
If we are to say gay marriage is okay, Then we are to say animal shagging is okay.

The argument from pedophilia.

I will not talk about this one in depth for obvious reasons, But giving gays marriage opportunity opens up many potential threats such as a pedo's right to marry, As long as the child consents, Gay logic tells us, Pedo marriage is okay. We're opening up a dangerous opportunity, One we may regret.


My first point was a very good one and I am disappointed you'd assert there is a hole in my argument, Allow me to clarify any confusion you may be experiencing.

[1] My 1st example regarding the eating of pork in a mosque is correct. It is illegal, There have been many instances where people have been arrested (in UK law) under the public order act 1986 which makes an offence for generally harassing, Alarming or offensive behaviour.
We allow Islam to uphold such practices, Yet we are willing to persecute the more vulnerable religions. This attack on vulnerability is unjust, It very clearly states in the Bible that marriage is between a man and a woman, If you don't like this, Then come up with your own religious practices, Don't steal and deface this sacred practice held by so many Catholics, Christian and the likes.

[2] Christians are not the only ones who get married obviously. It does not say in the Bible that other religions cannot use the practice of marriage, So your point is moot. Being gay is highly taboo in many cultures around the world, It always has been a source of social jest, Especially among young children, The big insult when I were a kid was "GAYLORD" upon being called a gaylord, A kid did not feel like a noble, Nor he of high birth, Because it was not a compliment. Culture, Society and even children understand the implications of a gay society. From a biological perspective, A gay culture could be dangerous and lead to a decline in population or a weakened and vunerable country. This is known as "Gayification" and as saint Alex Jones once said "THEY'RE TURNING THE FRINKIN FROGS GAY" Wisers words have rarely been uttered.

[3] You misread my 3rd point. My 3rd point is based on under population- using Japan as a source regarding its dangers. I never mentioned overpopulation. This point was made to tell us that, Anti-gay sentiments do not come from a source of hatred, Rather, They come from one of genuine concern.

Allow me to leave you with one last point if I may. If discrimination is based on hatred alone,

-Why do we discriminate against people under 18 by not giving them the vote, Forcing them into school and providing them with free dental care (until they're 18 and in the UK. )
-Why do we discriminate against those that have broken a leg over those that have a headache?
-The list would go on if I could be bothered, But you get the idea.

Let's not pretend discrimination is bad, It is a tool and it has its uses. Such tools can only be bad if bad intention are behind the motive.
Debate Round No. 2



First of all - there is absolutely NO evidence backing up your claim that more men are raped than women. 1 in 4 women in the United States have experienced or will experience a rape, Opposed to the 1 in 33 men. Don't try to tell me that men are raped more than women are. Second of all, No matter where a gay person is, They are more likely to be the victim and less likely to be the instigator of a rape. Prison rapes happen regardless of sexuality. Rape rates among gender and sexuality here are not up for debate. Your claims are factually incorrect and incredibly disrespectful to women and the LGBTQ+ community.

Marriage is not anti-gay. The only thing limiting gay marriage historically has been straight people. Why is it so difficult for you to understand that getting married isn't something gay people want out of spite? It's marriage. We don't want to spite Christians, We want to get married and live with our partners in a loving and committed relationship.

Your second and third claims I have already refuted. LGBTQ+ rights are not subject to the slippery slope because marriage is between two consenting adults. Animals cannot consent. Children cannot consent. The LGBTQ+ community has rallied around keeping pedophiles out of the community. Therefore, Your point is moot.

Let me say this one time.
Marriage is NOT exclusive to Christianity.
Allowing gay people to marry is NOT an attack on Christianity. It has no effect on the validity of a heterosexual, Christian marriage.
So why are you so bent on saying that it is?

The Bible doesn't explicitly state that gay people should be barred from marriage. And the reason why being gay has been taboo is because of the homophobia bred by generations of shaming and oppression. From a "biological" perspective - we NEED a population decline. Humanity is draining the world of its resources faster than they're replenished. While that's a whole different argument, I'd like to address the fact that out-of-control population growth is the opposite of what is needed.

Homophobia has never stemmed from concern.

Young people are not discriminated against by voting laws. Children do not have the mental capability to consistently make educated, Informed, Rational decisions until teenage years - such has been proven by neuroscience. Allowing children to have an influence in policy making would be unwise.

What do you mean - discriminating about an injury? That makes no sense.

Discrimination is only good if you are not being discriminated against. You, A heterosexual, White, (likely) upper-class man, Have never experienced institutionalized discrimination. Your exact demographic has always been powerful in the United States and thus discrimination isn't something you've experienced. The fact that you think discrimination is somehow a good thing is concerning.


In this argument, You will find that every point made by my opposition has been addressed. I will address each paragraphs in sections, Numbered for each paragraph.

[1] The figures you give regarding the rape of women (1 in 4) are the rates at which women claim to experience sexual harassment, Not rape -Thus the validity of all my oppsitions claims, Should be questioned.

If we factor in the false rape allegation culture present and the fact that men are less likely to admit they were sexually violated in prison and penetrated by another man, We begin to see that women are raped vastly less than males.
I reject your claim that gays are more likely to be the victims of rape; if a man anally penetrates another man, He is gay. Therefore, Every male on male rape case is perpetrated by gays.
I also reject your claim that I am factually incorrect and disrespectful to the LGBTQ community.
This sounds like virtue signalling to me. In truth, The only community that is being disrespected, Is the religious community.

[2] I don’t believe for one second that gay people need to partake in a historically religious ceremony and marry to prove they love one another.
Screaming “I love you! ” While getting anally blasted should be proof enough. We have not been given a single reason as to why gays need to get married.

[3] You claim that animals do not give consent, But when you consume cow flesh, You don’t ask the cow for consent. By this logic, We should not need consent from a cow or a boar when we are marrying them. If you are advocating for animal rights, Then it follows that you should advocate for an animals right to marry, Else you are discriminating against animals based on their inhuman nature. This is sheer bigotry. I believe my argument from boar still stands.

[4] Marriage is not exclusive to Christianity, I agree, But it has always been exclusive to straight couples and religion. If we are to appropriate religious concepts for non-religious purposes, We must remain respectful to that faith, Unless we are willing to deface their practices.
-If we are to not offend religious types, We should not allow gays to marry, I thought that not offending and not being a bigot is a huge standard the left abides by, Why does that standard not apply here?

[5] While gay people do not breed, Gay culture does breed various issues. From a societal perspective, A growing gay culture can lead to the feminisation of males which in turn, Can lead to a very large demographic that thinks with their feelings rather than, Their minds. Such feminisation can already be seen in the SJW, LGBTQ and feminist communities, All of which contribute to creating a culture fixated on destroying free speech and pushing agendas based anti-masculine and anti straight white male sentiments. It is because of this, We cannot allow gay culture to be normalised. Being gay Is not a biologically normal thing, You cannot be born gay, For no gay gene can exist as gays do not breed and pass on their genes. Instead, Homosexuality is environmental -more gays equals more gay influence. The issue will not be an aging population, But rather, A gaying population.

-This also tells us that homophobia can and does stem from concern.
To pretend your opponent is a bigoted homophobe, Is an excuse to not have to tackle their points. I would urge my opponent to not fall into a trap whereby they substitute their arguments, With labelling their opponent a bigot.

[6] To suggest that all young people do not have the mental capacity to vote, Is discrimination. We can certainly justify not allowing young people voting rights, But we still end up discriminating against them to make such arguments.

-If someone has a life-threatening injury and is sent to the hospital, They can skip the waiting room ahead of others. This is discrimination, Although it’s not a bad thing. In this instance, Discrimination is a good thing.

I would also urge my opponent not to make the mistake of retorting with calling me a straight white male, Who has never experienced institutionalised discrimination.
Saying such, Would ben discrimination against me for being white. The truth is, Every child has experienced discrimination growing up, As discrimination against age is the most common form of discrimination.


In this debate, I have tackled every point made by my opponent with two of my most important points left outstanding.

-The argument from boar was left without any real refutation.

-My argument concerning not being allowed to bring pork into a mosque, Being socially acceptable and enforceable by law, While the lack of tolerance towards Christianity and Catholicism remains rampant. The only input my opponent presents is “Not eating pork is something the entire religion does because the Qu'ran explicitly says so”
In defence of Islam, My opposision appeals to the Qu’ran as a source of authority, Thus leaving my argument outstanding.

-I have remained consistent in the face of overwhelming inconsistency and anti-religious sentiments.
-Where my opposition has employed double standards, I have exposed them.
-Where my opposition has provided false statistics, I have exposed them.

Stand with the side of reason rather than, The side of emotion.
Your conclution should be to vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
53 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by carefettes 3 years ago
[1] My point here is that animals cannot give consent. At all, For anything, Because they are not people, We cannot understand each other. Using animals as an example here is irrelevant for any matter. We are not talking about animals. We are talking about people.

[2] You know what else is rather clear? That religious texts don't dictate policy. Come at me with non-religious arguments and we'll have a much better, Intellectual debate.

[3] I never said the Bible wasn't a source of authority for Chrisitans. I said the Qu'ran is a source of authority for Muslims.
Posted by Masterful 3 years ago
[1] Regarding animal consent, You eat the flesh of these animals without their consent, Why is their consent suddenly so important?
You have not justified your argument.

[2] The Bible very clearly outlines the blueprints for marriage which are worded "between a man and a woman" Does the bible need to say "not between a man and a rock" "not to between a man and a boar" or "not between a man and a man" for you to understand what the Bible intends? It's rather clear.

-To say that the Bible is not a source of authority for Christians is incorrect. I don't see how your second point refutes my argument.
Posted by carefettes 3 years ago
I addressed your points several times over. The "boar" argument is invalid because animals cannot consent and therefore cannot marry. Children cannot consent and therefore cannot marry. Marriage is between two consenting adults, Nothing else. Anything else would be criminal. As for the argument concerning pork in a mosque, Muslims do see the Qu'ran as a source of authority, Which is why I phrased my argument thus so. However, The Bible never explicitly says gay people cannot marry. But thank you for allowing me to rephrase my points more concisely.
Posted by Masterful 3 years ago
How could I provide evidence if links do not post?
I refuted every argument you made and pointed out 2 arguments that you did not address.
Posted by carefettes 3 years ago
I would be inclined to agree with Block19, Not only because I debated against you but because you didn't really provide any evidence and your claims mostly rephrased what you'd already said instead of addressing my arguments and refuting them. Either way, I'm glad I had this debate and I hope we both learned something from it :)
Posted by Masterful 3 years ago
I'd say you're wrong.
Posted by Block19 3 years ago
Because even my weak argument with simple facts can beat your foolish arguments with no facts.
Posted by Masterful 3 years ago
If what you say is true, Then why were your arguments so weak?
Posted by mosc 3 years ago
Yo Masterful: "However, You're not allowed to eat pork in a mosque" LOL the rag heads declare their prophet follows the traditions of the Hebrew prophets. In the Order of forbidden flesh comes perverted relations followed by camel flesh then pig flesh. Arabs and Muslims love to dine upon forbidden sexual relations [incest is best] and the dine on camel flesh. LOL Losers with a capital L.
Posted by Block19 3 years ago
I could have figured you didn't care about the subject. People who do care tend to have more concrete arguments.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.