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

Gay Marriage should be allowed

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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: 1/27/2016 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 935 times Debate No: 85610
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (1)




Ok I am new so I don't really no the specifics of this website, but here's my opening argument:
I believe we should allow gay marriage beacuse it doesn't affect straight people. I am Christian, I oppose gayness, but I am willing to let other people do it, beacuse it really doesn't affect me. Most Western countries have agreed to a seperation of church and state, so if God won't allow gay people into heaven, then that's not the governments job, the government shouldn't be responsible for playing god. The argument that gays spread AIDS is dumb, beacuse heterosexuals have AIDS, and if only homosexuals had AIDS, then it wouldn't be a problem for heterosexuals. It is not anyone's job to tell people what to do with their lives, and if someone wants to do something that doesn't hurt anyone, we shouldn't stop them. That being said, we shouldn't force churches to marry gays ethier, as that is a violation of freedom of religion.


Hey, I'm new too so this should be on fair grounds. I am going to take the position that gay marriage should not be allowed. Just so you know, I am not Christian but I have studied the Bible for the last 3 years. Since you are claiming to be a Christian, I will use the Bible as one of my chief resources. You are saying that it does not affect you in any way if someone is gay, but I will use this pivotal point against you to show that it actually does affect you.

By the way, I agree with you saying that it is not anyone's job to tell people what to do with their lives. I absolutely agree, but now you tell me if God is just anyone? and whether or not He is qualified to tell people what to do. Since this is the first round, I do not want to get into exposing my arguments as that seems traditional as to what I can see from other debates so I'll save the bulk of it for later.

(By the way, please do not take offense as to anything I say. But since you have revealed that you are Christian, I will appeal to the explicit and implicit obligations of what that means. I look forward to having a interesting debate and to see your points and arguments)
Debate Round No. 1


When I say anyone I am referring to humans, not God. I use God and the bible to guide my life, but I have many atheists friends, with diffrent personal "rule-books," for lack of a better term. You haven't really given me much to rebuttal, and I made my opening/main argument in round 1, so I end here, until you show how you claim it affects me, or something else I can rebuttal.
(I I took offense easily I wouldn't go to a website made for people to disagree with me)


Now that we are in Round 2, I will present my arguments. Since we are debating that it 'should' be allowed, I will ask you to present why to prove why it ought, not just can or is, but that it ought and should be done.

That being said, my first contention is that the acceptance and promotion of gay people in society is detrimental to the development of the youth. Gay families adopt children quite often, and I am sure that is something you do not plan to prohibit them from doing. I am not claiming that these children are being forced to become gay, but what I do claim is that the child's parents have an undeniable affect on their lives. Children are most susceptible to influence at a young age, accepting nearly anything they are given, and these changes can shape their lives. A research conducted by the University of British Columbia, even though they argue children are not as gullible as may seem, concedes that they do not develop the skeptical intuition until the age of 5. Being exposed to gay parents have a undeniable impact on a child's life.
I am not claiming that having gay parents are bad people, such that they are all murderers, and liars, or other things condemned by society, but acknowledge that they usually are and of course can be morally good people. My two objections, however, are that they are not capable of resembling the child's parents to the same extent. Everyone knows it is biologically impossible for a gay couple to have a naturally born child, and any child born has 1 biological mother, and 1 biological father. The fact that they are a gay couple is contradictory to this, and can not emulate the exact same natural environment for the children. That being said, I do not plan to base my argument on mere ideas and do wish to introduce data to the debate.
The Family Research Council has conducted a study on the children raised by gay parents in relation to those raised by their biological parents. The study reported that children of homosexual couples were 77 out of 80 time worse that those of the biologically intact families. When I say worse, I mean they are more likely to be on public assistance, more likely to be unemployed, more likely to have affairs, significantly (nearly 10 times) more like to have been touched sexually by a parent, and these are things that are not considered good under any standard.
Since gay couple cannot naturally have kids and are usually not capable of taking better care of kids than their heterosexual parents, they should not be permitted to have kids. This means they are deprived of the most typical necessity of a family. Being so, they are a detriment to society in that sense that if they are married, they are incapable of having a family which is the purpose of marriage.

My second contention is the opposite of one of your very points. You simply asserted the claim that being gay does not affect anyone else but the people involved in that sexual interaction, but you never supported this. Not only do I challenge you to support it, but also refute the arguments that I make. Your proposal of saying gay people should be allowed to get married requires a significant change to our traditional definition of marriage (yeah, that doesn't affect us at all right?). This is going to change what it mean to be married, not only for homosexuals but also existing heterosexual families.
There are implicit actions that you are taking by consenting to say gay marriage should be allowed. You are mandating yourself to recognize people as a family, even though it contradicts the example provided by your 'guiding book' presented in Genesis, and hence accepting their 'guide book' as your own. This is not something targeted at you, but any individual who holds to not only the Bible, but also the Quran, the Torah, and most other predominant beliefs in the world because if you permit something that your 'rule book' says is wrong, that is allowing it to affect your life. What you fail to see is that it is impossible to give everyone what they want as we do not live in a private world of our own, but we all share one and no change occurs that has no side effects. And since a majority of the country not only hold to a different definition for marriage and a belief system that requires change to adopt your proposal, I appeal to dismiss your argument that permitting gay marriage does not affect us at all.

And your argument saying that the government isn't responsible for playing God is another you do not offer any support to. Coming back to the Bible, since I am accepting your presupposition that there is a God and since you claimed to be a Christian your belief in the bible, in Romans 13:1 it says, "let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God and those that exist have been instituted by him." A verse in the same chapter says, "but if you do wrong be afraid. for he (the government) does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrong doer." Coming from a Biblical perspective, your argument is inaccurate to the explicit words as it actually says the complete opposite of what you had said. And from a secular perspective, government is responsible for the benefit of its entire people, and the desires of a few homosexuals are not the majority relative to the desires of the others (only about 3%). The US has an obligation to each citizen, and redefining marriage would not be beneficial to everyone. After all, I am not saying that gay people should not be allowed to have sex, but that they should not be allowed to form a family through marriage.
Debate Round No. 2


Like I said it should be beacuse it doesn't affect anyone. I have a friend(male)who was raised by lesbian parents, and he he has become successful. Just beacuse they don't follow the traditional parent role does not make them bad parents just different. So what if the parents encourage their children to be gay, more homosexuality can lead to less overpopulation. Also, your argument against the can fill the void also applies to straight adopted parents. You also claim, that i would support allowing gay parents to sexually abuse their children, beacuse that would not be allowed. Also you claim the purpose of marriage is to have a family, but if a man and a woman who were incapable or didn't want to have a family would you consider them a determine to society. And if the change of definition doesn't interfere with heterosexual marriage than it doesn't affect heterosexuals. Okay fine, now that homosexuals can marry the rest of us have to change the definition of a word, not a big deal. Another thing is the bible refers to a Christian government, according to separation of church and state that is invalid. Also your using the bible in your argument, to prove a point that a group people should be allowed to have sex but not be allowed to marry, therefore sex before marriage. I can't really say why it 'oughtta be done, beacuse I am against it, but if someone wants to burn in hell its not my problem.


You have not answered to the fact that people will have to change their personal beliefs in order to recognize a homosexual couple as a married couple. This is changing society and therefore affecting, according to the very definition if the word affect. Further more, your example of only one person you know provides inadequate context. Everyone knows that one person does not provide enough information of a while group of people. For example, ISIS claims to be Muslim and are terrorist. Therefore all Muslims are terrorists. This is not how it works. I do not claim all Muslims are terrorists, nor do I claim all gay parents to be horrible as i said before, but my data provides more thorough investigation on this matter and is therefore more reliable than you with one 1 instance.

And my reason for saying gay parents are not good parents is not that they are not heterosexual, but that they have shown, according to the research I previously referenced, to be less opportune environment for a child to grow up in. And the research does not apply to heterosexual adopted parents because if you read the source carefully you would see the data was specifically targeted at homosexual parents.

And my objection was not that children would become gay, but that they would be affected by things deemed bad by society and even the homosexuals because I do not remember the last time anyone was praised for being unemployed or facing sexual harassment by their parents or etc. This is something you have not answered, and something inevitable if homosexuals are permitted marriage and have a family.

You said that I charged you for allowing gay parents to abuse their children, but it was not a direct charge, but something that was shown extremely more likely by the statistic that I had provided. Since we are talking about gay marriage, being gay is not the fact of contention, but whether they should be allowed to be married. Therefore I care not whether people are gay and will not say anything regarding that, but only upon the inevitable problems of permitting gay marriage.

You raised the situation of whether I would say a straight couple not wanting to have kids is a detriment to society. Firstly, I would like to define a family because most your question show an uncertainty regarding that. A family is a group consisting of children and parents living together in a household (Google). Now to answer your question, no I do not think they are a detriment to society because they have the potential to be better parents, than a homosexual couple can.

You also said that the change of the definition of marriage does not affect heterosexual families, but the reality is that it does because that is the definition of the marriage that they are under too. Changing the definition is therefore a change in their state as the definition and who they are, are being changed.

You saying that the Bible refers only to a christian government is simply ludicrous since it shows that you have not read what I have written carefully. The verse I quoted said "THERE IS NO AUTHORITY EXCEPT FROM GOD" and since the government is a form of authority, it is from God and therefore subject to him. A separation of church and state, for your information, does not say that all religious sentiments must be void in government, but that the government would not promote any religion or limit them. Your misunderstanding as it is evident from history that the Puritans and pilgrims who immigrated to America would never mean that religion is to be locked away.

And regarding the Bible, I did not say that the bible to say that they should not be allowed to have sex, but just to say that the definition of marriage provided by it in Genesis is contradictory to that which you propose. I never mentioned that the bible says it's okay to have sex before marriage, but that was me personally saying that as far as the debate is concerned I am not here to argue that homosexuality is bad, but that its marriage should not be permitted.

I truly appreciate your honesty in expressing that you cant say why it ought to not be done, because that makes it easier for people to vote. I have shown why it ought to be not done because it affects people, and is detrimental to society and so I would urge our dear readers to vote con.

Thank you once again for a good argument, and I hope you have a great day
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by HSamei1999 2 years ago
All good brother, and thanks for your interest and that too
Posted by Grandzam 2 years ago
Sorry Samei, I'm the one who reported that vote. I'm going to vote though to make up for it :P
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: Burningsnow// Mod action: Removed<

3 points to Con (Conduct, Sources), 1 point to Pro (S&G). Reasons for voting decision: Though Samei argues that gay marriage affects everyone, this argument is simply not correct, and if anything it evolves the tolerance of our society. However the fact that Lord_libertarian disapproves gayness, but favors being gay is completely intolerant. Since gayness is not a specific action, it is a stereotype. Therefore, I believe that your arguments are both flawed. However, I do still support a gay person's right to choose, whether to get married or not.

[*Reason for removal*] The voter simply explains why they found both arguments disagreeable. He does not explain any of his point allocations.
Posted by HSamei1999 2 years ago
Well, I could pull the God argument, but my goal is to convince you guys, so whatever makes you think I make sense is what ever I want coming outta my mouth. And thanks for the guidance, it's my first so it's a learning experience. By the way I apologize if I was supposed to get straight into arguing because most that I saw had the first round just stating the outline of the debate. My apologies if I was judging based on the action of a few
Posted by bloocoat 2 years ago
Pro doesn't even have an argument. As much as I am against gay marriage, it is legal in the US. What can Pro argue if there is nothing to even argue about?
Posted by MikeTheGOd 2 years ago
I would say being gay should affect a Christian especially the movement because our future children will be exposed to this stuff probaly at a younger age then we were. It's no longer just porn and drug exposure to worry about but gay as well.
Posted by Lord_Libertarian 2 years ago
Why do we have to use the essay format, is it a rule?
Posted by Reformist 2 years ago
If Con uses the God argument he is going to lose

You guys both need to use essay structure to debate instead of large paragraphs

Use sources as well

Remember use facts not the God arguement
Posted by MikeTheGOd 2 years ago
Can't debate this tbh. I am debating is gay marriage okay? But should gay marriage be allowed is a whole another thing. I Am Christian as well and I also believe that we can't force people to do stuff. Even though we see gay marriage as wrong God doesn't want us to force people to change. HE wants us to choose him or choose whatever.

I will watch this but can't really debate it. I am willing to let other people be gay not because it doesn't affect me but because Jesus didn't force people to follow him. WE shouldn't force individuals but try to influence them and persuade.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Grandzam 2 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did a very good job presenting and supporting arguments with sources. Because Pro never backed up any of his statements, and certainly not with sources, Con gets the sources vote. In round 2, Con presents multiple compelling arguments that are backed up solidly. Pro seems to mention a contention Con makes about "fill the void" or something, but none of Con's points have been solidly refuted. Con's rebuttal to Pro's argument that it "doesn't matter to him," is bit weak. The argument is irrelevant in the first place and instead of calling him out for it, Con instead kinda answers it with a contradiction about the book of Genesis and the new definition of marriage that would result. Con, however, negated the resolution by showing how it would be harmful to straight people and Pro dropped it. With that in mind, it is clear that Con has made the most convincing arguments.