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

Gay Marriage Should Be Legal

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Arnold_Benjaman has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/20/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 640 times Debate No: 97182
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




This debate will focus on whether gay marriage should be legal.
Round 1 will be acceptance. Round 2-3 are for arguments/making your case, as well as rebuttals against your opponent. Round 4 will have no new arguments made, and will mainly rebut your opponent's arguments. Please cite all your sources.


I accept the challenge
Debate Round No. 1


Firstly, I define:
~gay: sexually attracted to people of the same sex and not to people of the opposite sex
~marriage: a legally accepted relationship between two people in which they live together
~legal: allowed by the law

The argument I will be going over in this round is:
~people cannot help their sexual orientation
And in the next round I will say:
~people deserve to love, and therefore marry, whomever they want; it doesn't matter it's not the social norm

Firstly, people cannot help their sexual orientation. A person who is gay cannot help loving someone of the same sex no more than a person who is heterosexual can help loving someone who is of the opposite sex. "Years of research suggest that people can't change their sexual orientation because they want to, and that trying can cause mental anguish. What's more, some studies suggest that being gay may have a genetic or biological basis. Humans aren't the only species that has same-sex pairings. While the evolutionary purpose of this behavior is not clear, the fact that animals routinely exhibit same-sex behavior belies the notion that gay sex is a modern human innovation." This source illustrates my point, being gay is not a choice, as society would have us believe. You may say that there has been no evidence of "gay genes" however "some genes may make being gay likelier. For instance, a 2014 study in the journal Psychological Medicine showed that a gene on the X chromosome (one of the sex chromosomes) called Xq28 and a gene on chromosome 8 seem to be found in higher prevalence in men who are gay."

So tell me, why can't gays marry? They can't help being gay, and yet many laws around the world prevent them from marrying. That's like a law banning drinking through our mouths. We can't help it, it's the way we were born. We were born to drink through our mouths. Therefore the law is ridiculous and unreasonable. This might be an extreme example, but it illustrates my point. The same is true for the laws banning gays from marrying. It is in their nature, and yet we still have the laws preventing them. It is extremely unfair!

And therefore, because gay people cannot help their sexuality, they should be able to marry legally.



First of all, homosexuality is a choice, and I have loads of proof.
If you choose to be gay, you choose to lose some rights, in fact there should be many rights that you lose because of it. These gay pedophiles are using their sexuality to roam into female bathrooms and you know what goes on from that point on. Sadly these animals are being protected by their constitution simply because they argue they are "born that way". Well maybe I was "born to slay homosexuals", but the government wouldn't justify my murder, why should they justify homosexual rights?
Debate Round No. 2


You make an interesting case point there, however are your sources credible? When I looked at your sources, they seemed more like opinion pieces than based on actual fact. Furthermore, being gay means you like someone of the opposite sex, how does being gay translate into being pedophile? That seems very harsh. And again, how does being gay translate into "roaming into female bathrooms". Once again, being gay means liking someone of the opposite sex, and there is no evidence to support your claims that gay=pedophile and gay=going into female bathrooms. And why are you calling gay people animals? They are human, no matter their sexuality. Calling them animals does not lend to your argument. And finally, your murder comparison seems rather extreme. How do you compare loving someone to murdering someone?

Now onto my argument, people deserve to love, and therefore marry, whomever they want. It is a basic human right to love, and would you deny another human being the right to love someone, so much, that they can't get married? It isn't fair to them. They are human beings too, no matter you call them "animals". I know many people are opposed to gay marriages because it isn't the social norm. But I have a paradox for you to consider.

"Normal" is considered the ordinary, or the usual, according to and "different" is considered not the same. Being heterosexual is normal, because the majority of people in this world are heterosexual, and therefore anything else isn't normal, just "weird" or "different". But if those "weird" or "different" people became the majority, in this case the gay people, then they would become the new normal. And being heterosexual would be "weird". And how would you like it to be scorned and hated because of who you love. It isn't fair. It isn't right.

So why should you claim that gays are "animals", because they aren't the normal? That they don't deserve the right to marry, or other rights? They do deserve rights, as the are human, and loving isn't a crime. It isn't a crime to love men if you are a woman, and it isn't a crime to love women if you are a man. Therefore, why can't we change laws to allow men to marry men and women to marry women? There is no credible reason, other than hate, and fear. Think about it.


I would like to rebutt your argument that just because it isn't a social norm, gay marriage is okay.
Much of society revolves around what is the "norm", it is accepted for a reason. Walking around in you panties is not a "norm" and many consider it "disgusting" and "vile". Similarly doing drugs is not a social norm, and is illegal almost everywhere. Why not let the crackheads do their thing, just like your argument saying that gay people should just express their love and marry. Surely you don't support public nudity or drug abuse correct?
Lastly, with gay marriage comes more rights that homosexuals will demand. Here is a paradox for you to consider as well. Gays are already rampagingly demanding that people service them regardless of their sexuality, for example marriage flower boutiques, restaurants, and other services. Yet many of these people are denying them because it goes against their religion or beliefs, where homosexuals are truly considered animals (or even worse). How will the government uphold the "rights" that gays are asking for while also protecting the beliefs of the servicemen/women? It is an impossibility.
Debate Round No. 3


Time for the final round-the rebuttal round.

Firstly, you gave a few sources for why homosexuality is a choice. However they all seemed like opinion pieces, and when I brought that up, you didn't argue. Secondly, you claimed gays are pedophiles and animals, and you quickly tried to backtrack, saying "where homosexuals are truly considered animals", implying that you did not consider gay people animals. Yet you clearly said in your first argument "sadly these animals are being protected". And then you implied killing homosexuals, however, was that necessary? You also made some very extreme connections. You repeatedly compared being gay, that's loving someone, albeit of the same gender, to extreme actions. For example, you compared loving someone to murder, walking around naked, and illegal drug use. How do you make those connections?

In your next argument, you said that " with gay marriage comes more rights that homosexuals will demand". What is bad about that? Why shouldn't gays have rights? Why can't they be served regardless of their sexuality? It seems unreasonable that they can't. And then you said many people would deny them because it goes against their beliefs. But when entering a store, one wouldn't randomly announce their sexuality. And the store clerk wouldn't ask "What is your sexuality?" so that they know whether they can serve them or not, that is intruding. The clerks would serve them anyways. So how is your argument valid? Also, people must accept the beliefs of others. While they may not approve of gay marriage, others must accept it. Finally, you keep on referencing gay rights, however the topic of this debate is "Gay Marriage Should Be Legal", we are just focusing on gay marriage. We can debate the topic of gay rights another time.

Now, I said, that people cannot help their sexual orientation. As I already said, you tried to disclaim me by giving me a bunch of sources, however when I said that they were merely opinion pieces, you did not disagree. You made no comment at all. Then, I went on to say that people deserve, at least, their right to love, and therefore marry, whomever they want. And it doesn't matter it's not the social norm. You did not disagree to the point that people deserve the right to love, but you did try to rebut my point on being the social norm. However, I say, and said, that the way you tried to rebut this was by comparing it to other non-norms, like walking around half-naked, and illegal drug use. However, as I said earlier, the connections you made between people loving each other, and drug use is very abstract.

And now, I shall leave it to the members of the DDO to decide who has won this debate. I have given you a lot to consider for why gay marriage should be legal. However, for all these reasons, I believe that gay marriage should be legal.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by westerly2004 2 years ago
For @jo154676, since I can't reply to your comment...
I believe, that while this idea is new and radical...why not? I suppose the cannot be stopped from marrying, and even reproducing, however I don't have a strong opinion either way. What I do understand, however, is that people were originally stopped from marrying and reproducing with relatives, especially close ones, because children from the couple usually were born with disabilities, (because of the similar genes.)

However, in the modern day and age, why not? I'm sure if they did truly love each other, they can marry, and if the child did have disabilities, there is plenty of support for the child in therapy, doctors and otherwise.
Posted by jo154676 2 years ago
One quick question for pro here, since you say 2 people that love each other should be allowed to be married and engage in marital activites, what about 2 people that are related? Should they be allowed to marry and possibly reproduce?
This debate has 0 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.