The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
4 Points

Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/3/2011 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,484 times Debate No: 15098
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)




This debate is a popular one eh? People have been gay, bi-sexual, and lesbian for centuries. There is nothing wrong with it, nor do people have a right to say anything bad about it because there is nothing bad to say about it, but its freedom of speech and everybody is entitled to their opinion. I believe that people that are gay, bi-sexual, or lesbian, just have different minds and like different things, people are unique in their own way, and everybody is different. You have a right to disgree with me, but it should be legalized, talking bad about gays, bi-sexualls, and lesbians is just like racism, but of peoples sexualty.


Before I begin, a big Thank you to my opponent for iniating such a debate as this.

so as my oponent has done, I will simply use this speech to lay out the basic ideas that I plan to expand upon through-ou this debate; and we can wait until a later round to actually start the clash. (it's only fair that we both have an understanding of each other's stance before we begin to clash.)

So first of all, I do agree with my opponent; Homosexuals have existed for a very very very long time. And whether or not you think it's right or wrong is really irrelevant in the scope of this debate. The simple fact is; Homosexual Marriage should not be legal.
the prime reasoning for this, is that marriage was originally instituted as a religious sanction; many of these religions who adhered to the system of marriage (not all mind you) where theistic or abrahamic in nature. Well the impact this has, is that these abrahamic religion's doctrines taught against Homosexuality. So allowing Homosexuals to have this title of being (married) is completely dis-respectful to the religious beliefs of billions of people all across the world.

When we begin to offend the people who adhere to the theistic and abrahamic religions to such a great degree by taking a part of their own religious doctrrine and just using it as we wish; we thereby interefere with these people's basic rights to Religion.

I have other reasons that require clash with my opponent; but as I said I will wait until a later speech to express these thoughts

Back to you Pro. :3
Debate Round No. 1


I believe you are right, on how gay marriage is besically a disgrace to all religions, but what about the ones who do not believe in god? It wouldnt matter to them, but gay marriage being illegal is wrong because it is not fair to all those people, because they are not allowed to get married, or have to go halfway across the country to be. People fall in love and they get married, only heterosexuals, but gays fall in love and they cant get married due to the illegalment of it. I believe all people should be treated equally and as for gay marriage, thats one of the factors of being equal. People are talking about legalizing marajuana, but they havent thought much on legalizing gay marriage. I disagree with all respect to my opponent.

Now back to my opponent :)


I than my opponent for his response :3

Now here we have a few things to Consider, first of all we've come to an agreed conclusion that Homosexual Marriage is bad by standards of religious belief, or at least the abrahamic religions (Judaism, Muslim, Christianity religions that trace their origins back to Abraham)

now this is only one of a few key points I have concerning this topic.
With this in mind (knowing that Marriage is a religious communion between man and women) we should not even begin to consider referring to this term as "marriage" but instead if anything we need to look towards civil unions. Now in now way am I saying I agree with Homosexuality, so in any manner of the sense I would be against a same sex relationship, however as a Civil union, it takes faith out of the picture. Which, as my opponent conceded to in their prior argumentation, Homosexual marriage is something that would be deemed both offensive and undesirable in abrahamic Religions.

And so now that I have shown you m main reason why Homosexual Marriage should not be legal, let;s move on to the con stance.

in Con's first speech, they basically give only their opinion on why nothing is wrong with homosexuality, and then conclude with saying that having homosexual marriage illegal restricts freedom of speech. well I really only have two arguments regarding their first speech

first, It's off topic, the debate is not about whether or not homosexuality is right or wrong, if it where then then that's what the topic should have been. But instead, this debate is over whether or not same sex marriage should be legal. my opponent has done nothing to prove same sex marriage here.

second, my opponent's conclusion; that the current system limits free speech, is completely baseless. Just because it is illegal for two people of the same gender to get married in most states in the U.S. this in no manner limits their free speech.

Now going on to my opponent's second speech, we've already conceded that marriage is a religious thing, and that Homosexual marriage can be seen as highly inappropriate to members to members of these abrahamic religions. so we cannot accept an argument on the grounds of fairness, as it wold be unfair to these people adhering to their religious doctrine. We must instead look to Civil Unions.

Now using this idea as a scope to frame the debate, my opponent offers you no warrant to prove their claim.

So in conclusion, thus far in today's debate, the vote must absolutely go to the Pro, as Con have given no solid warrant through out the course of today's debate to prove that Same sex marriage should indeed be legal.

Back to Con!
Debate Round No. 2


Thank you pro for your arguement.

Now life, liberty, and the pursiut of happiness are our unalienable rights. Which therefore mens that they cannot be taken away for us. Gay marriage, being illegal in the united states, is in violation in those rights. The United States is supposed to be in sync with the Delaration of Independence, but they are contravening with these rights, so these laws that they have are not going by the Declaration of Independance.

Back to con:3


1. My opponent has dropped all his prior arguments

2. My opponent has not touched any points I have made thus far

That said, extend my prior arguments; and count my opponent's prior arguments as drops.

now to my opponent's last statements. He claims that Same Sex Marriage being illegal defies the basic rights guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence. My opponent however does not provide a warrant to prove this. Neither does he provide any kind of analysis or evidence. this point as no weight in the debate and thus drops

No since my opponent no longer has a case; and the Con still does- there is no other vote but for the Con.
accordingly I urge you; vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 7 years ago
@abard125 Thanks for the critique. And yeah I realize my grammar is awful XD; sorry about that.
Posted by abard124 7 years ago
The Declaration of Independence is not law. It's just Jefferson whining. I think I've used that argument in the past, though, but I admit I was wrong. The better argument is that there are legal benefits to getting married which are far beyond the religious satisfaction of being married. No church would be required to perform gay weddings, only the state would be forced to recognize them.
Posted by System113 7 years ago
Why would homosexuals want to enter into the dark, miserable void we call marriage? Why get the government involved in a private matter like that.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by abard124 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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, Con put a lot of effort into his responses. You could have responded with the same effort. That said, in the way of substance, both parties had about the same amount. Religion is a completely invalid argument since this has nothing to do with religious marriage, only legal marriage, but Pro never refuted that. To both of you: Capital letters go at the beginning of sentences, proper nouns, and the word "I." They are your friends; use them.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Clear win to Con, enough that they could actually take the BoP.
Vote Placed by gavin.ogden 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con used religion to negate the resolution, and pro stated that it is unconstitutional. Since the constitution clearly grants religion NO power in government, via the first sentence of the first ammendment, pro is the decided victor on his argument's merit.