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

Gay Marriage Should Continue Be Legal

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
NDECD1441 has forfeited round #2.
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: 7/21/2017 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 929 times Debate No: 103273
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)



I believe that gay marriage should continue to be legal, at least in the United States. First round is acceptance and opening arguments.

Arguments For

Of course, the strongest argument for marriage equality is in fact equality. The United States was founded upon this very principle of equality between all people. Most laws in the Western world are designed to be inclusive and protective of all, so it makes little sense to deny a group of people the legal protection and support that a marriage provides.A simple application of the Golden Rule works wonders, do onto others as you would wish to be onto you. If a legal heterosexual marriage is what you personally wish for, why not wish for others to be allowed to marry as they so wish too. If homosexuality was made illegal, that means that if homosexuals would be forced to marry people of the other gender is they wished to be married. Imagine the opposite situation, where heterosexuality was made illegal and males were forced to marry males and females were forced to marry females. Most of us would definitely dislike being forced to marry someone you don't love.

Anticipated Objections

To begin, I must ask, why would someone not want it to be so? Why would someone wish for their marriage to be legal and not wish the same for others? The answer is almost always the same; religion. Since the U.S. is primarily Christian, I will argue against that position, though I must admit the problem is much worse in Islamic countries where gays get thrown off of rooftops. What reason should the United States, with a secular constitution with a separation of church and state, should respect a single religion's wishes? If we did, that, we are in violation of the first amendment to the Constitution. And one must ask which denomination of Christianity should we follow. How about Mormonism, which still has some sects who practice polygamy? And what if Christianity is no longer dominant, we are stuck with Sharia law or such. All these problems could easily be avoided by just following the Constitution. To add to this, Jesus never made any mention of homosexuality, whatsoever. To get justification for being anti-gay one must go to the Old Testament into the book of Leviticus (the one about not eating bacon or shrimp) or into the words of Paul in Romans. Why should the infidels of the country follow someone else's Holy Book?

So right now, there are approximately one gazillion books on the market about God's perfect plan for marriage, which spoiler alert, is about one man and one woman. But of course, one must ask who in the Bible actually follows this plan. Not Abraham, not Jacob, not Moses, not Sampson, not David, nor Solomon(700 wives and 300 concubines), nor Jesus(0 wives). There's a joke among atheists/agnostics where someone walks into the room saying they need biblically mandated marriage, and everyone then agrees with them and then immediately asks where are their concubines. One of the few groups of people who actually follow this divine plan is Adam and Eve, and what choice did they have?

How about that homosexuality is unnatural? Not only is this objection not true, due to homosexuality being abundant in the animal kingdom like how 1 in 10 sheep are homosexuals(and you can't really blame it on an animal's free will), that's also under the presumption that something being natural automatically makes it good. You wanna know what is natural? Mankind usually dying in childbirth, whether it be the mother or the child. Dying before the age of 30, usually because of their teeth. Disease. Getting slaughtered by the beasts of the wild. Just because something is natural, doesn't mean that it is good. You know what's unnatural? The computer you're reading this on. Trains, planes, and cars. Modern medicine. Video games. Air conditioning

Some might say, well if we allow men to marry each other, what's next? Can I marry my daughter or my dog? This argument was proposed by many, including former Senator Rick Santorum. First off, this is a slippery slope fallacy. Second, the exact same could be said about voting during the women's civil rights movement. It didn't end up with dogs getting the right to vote, or drive cars. And just how the latter objection would make someone sexist, it is safe to say that the same could be said about the former making someone a homophobe.

Some of the more fundamentalist variety have suggested that if we allow gays to marry, there be divine retribution. I must ask, what evidence is there for this? One can just cite the example of Jerry Farwell blaming abortion, homosexuality, and feminism for the 9/11 attacks while there were still people buried under the fiery wreckage as an example of this principle going to fare. This is, of course, ignoring the actual cause, hijackers (additionally if God did cause these attacks, this may violate free will) Or how some Rabbis blamed a lack of adherence to the Sabbath for the Holocaust. If there is any correlation to sin and natural disasters, we should very well know about it. Las Vegas is perfectly fine right now and hasn't had any significant natural disasters in years. There is also the events of Boobquack, where women dressed scantily for the very purpose of seeing if it would cause an earthquake (it didn't). One might also ask why can't God communicate in a more effective manner than sending disasters causing harm and putting it in charge of fallible humans to interpret his message.



Thank you for making this debate and as con, I will be against gay marriage.

My point is based on rights. So despite what most people supporting gay marriage say, the point of a gay person having rights isn't as good as it seems. The fact that gays are already considered an insult to their religion and even their existence cannot be denied as the majority has already demonstrated that by refusing to associate or mix with anyone connected to the gay including the gay himself. If the government gives them more rights the majority will take this as an attack to their religion and they will do the natural thing. Retaliate. There will be more attacks on the streets and the gays will be shamed for a really long time. Maybe forever. The only reason why gays haven't been wiped out from the face of the earth (that was an expression for the record) is that they have been living in hiding and security and no one has any idea whether they are gay or not. However, marriage is public. The moment you hear that a guy married another guy, bam. He gets attacked. Soon gays will be too scared and once again will go into hiding and the right to marry will soon be useless. You don't need to be a fortune teller to figure out this will happen. So in conclusion, a right requires a platform and this right doesn't have one. Just to clairify my stance, I am not saying I am against gays, I am saying THIS right will do more harm than good to them.

My point has already destroyed yours and I will explain how. As I have said, the majority consider gay marriage as an attack to their religion such as, as you said, the marriage of Adam and Eve. By the fact that gay marriage is unpopular, when made legal, they will take it as an attack to them and they will attack back. The gays are living in hiding and it is incredibly rare to find a gay marriage as it will be taking a toll on their lives and they know it. Face it, unless we can do something to change the majority's opinion (which we currently cant) there will be no platform for the law to stand. By illegalizing gay marriage, we could neutralize the hate by a little bit and gays would be a little safer out there. Besides, there is certainly no point of holding the law up so why bother?

With that, I conclude my speech and pass the debate to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1


My opponent's position is that we shouldn't continue to have gay marriage in the United States and criminalize it. His justification for this is his unsupported claim that if gay marriage was made legal in a country, the very moment someone hears that a guy married another guy, bam. First off, this screams as an argumentum ad consequentiam, Latin for an argument from consequences. If we allow gay rights, all hell will break loose and gays will start to be shot in the streets or such. ThankGod for the2cd amendment. Of course, this is illogical. Gay marriage was allowed in the U.S. after the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges case, where the supreme court ruled that it is a fundamental right for homosexuals to marry due to by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment. This was reaffirmed in the Pavan v. Smith case. No riots and rampages came from the ruling.The U.S. isn't a backward, third world country filled to the brim with wingnuts and nut jobs. We do of course have some maniacs and lunatics such as the son of Jerry Farwell, who once was considered for Secretary of Education by Donald Trump. In the words of Hemant Mehta, "We were that close to having an evolution denier, climate change conspiracist, and Christian fundamentalist in charge of our nation"s public schools." Sadly Betsy Devos is almost all of said things.

Other countries in the world are doing perfectly fine with gay marriage, such as Germany, the U.K., Finland France, Sweden, Luxembourg, Belgium, Denmark, Iceland, Ireland, and Spain, just to list some. They're doing great if we can exclude the terrorist attacks like that in Brussels. Those sort attacks typically come from other countries such as Saudi Arabia, though admittingly, some are domestic. Central and Eastern Europe on the other hand, aren't as supportive. That was a subject of controversy during the Winter Olympics in Russia. To add, if we did criminalize it, then we would not only give people justification to hate gays, but this may lead to police arresting people for being gay. It isn't guaranteed but it definitely is a possibility. Alan Turing, the man who cracked the Nazi's enigma code, was chemically castrated for being gay back in 1952 U.K. And I don't think you need to experience castration first hand to know it is painful.

My opponent also claims that gay marriage is against Christianity. If one counts the largely ignored Mosiac law that's thrown in with the Noachian flood deluge and such in the Old Testament, then one has a case. Not to go too deeply into theological matters, but if one follows just one law about gay marriage, then by extension they must then follow more of said laws. As a side note, one man tried to follow all of the laws in the Bible for a year, it didn't work. He failed after trying to not look at a woman lustfully.

Homosexuality is obviously against the "religion of peace" Islam, due to passages in the Quran and the Hadith, but Muslims are a minority in America. They do however have their presence, such Farrokh Sekaleshfar(very hard to spell name), a Shia cleric, and ISIS sympathizer who was in Orlando preaching that gays should be executed days before the Orlando Shooting that killed 49. One must also ask that after a massacre, what is the proper response? Sadness, grief, perhaps helping the victim's families. Not praising the attackers as Pastor Roger Jimenez did after the events, saying "the tragedy is that more of them didn't die. Most of the United States spoke in a unified voice, condemning the attacker. If we lived in the same imaginary universe that my opponent thinks we are in, we would expect praise from the events. This isn't so. The U.S. has Gay Pride Parades, gay nightclubs, gay straight alliances, and such. Would we expect them to be a horror show of violence and bloodshed under my opponent's universe.

Thomas Jefferson once received a letter from the Danbury Baptists of Connecticut in 1802. Who were they concerned about? The Congressionolist of Connecticut and their absolute domination of government, asking for rules of religious liberty and a freedom of religion. An excerpt of his reply:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their "legislature" should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

James Madison held quite similar views. A ban on gay marriage violates the 1st and the 14th amendment, as a well as a freedom of religion. As said in the Tripoli Treaty, "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."Plenty of times throughout U.S. history we have fought against religious rule, such as when we allowed Utah to become a state if they outlawed polygamy. Then again, when we go against this separation of church and state, secular society breaks down. At one point in time, there was an extermination order for Mormons from Missouri Executive Order 44. If I may take the opinion of the Danbury Baptists, the government shall "not, dare not, assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ."
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Jay1980 2 years ago
@ canis it's not even legal
Posted by Jay1980 2 years ago
No. It's not even legal. The only legal marriage is between a man and a woman
Posted by canis 3 years ago
Why would anyone try to make it ilegal ? makes no harm to anyone..
Posted by CosmoJarvis 3 years ago
Likewise. It was enjoyable debating a topic such as Fallout New Vegas, especially with you. I'd be happy to debate you again any other time. :)
Posted by DeletedUser 3 years ago
Thanks, CosmoJarvis. Also, thanks for debating me about Fallout New Vegas. If you want another debate on anything, I'm up for a challenge.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 3 years ago
Here is my assessment of Round One:

Provides an organized opening argument
Gives strong, well-explained points supporting his argument
Addresses some of the strongest counterarguments against the legalization of homosexual marriage
Provides reliable sources

Makes a disorganized opening argument
Provides unfounded and unrealistic speculation on what would happen with the legalization of homosexual marriage
Is very inspecific in his reasoning
Provides no sources to support his points
This debate has 4 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.

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