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

Gay Marriage

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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: 6/10/2016 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 534 times Debate No: 92577
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)




Round 1: Accept the debate, state your opinion.

Round 2: I will start with my opening arguments, you rebuttal and state your arguments.

Round 3-4: Rebuttal and bring up new arguments....

Round 5: Finish up and make closing statements.

I would like to have a interesting and fair debate. No bashing, or arguing with false sources. I would like to have a debate based on fact and morals, and I will let you choose if we make legal arguments on whether or not gay marriage should be aloud.

As a warning for my future arguments, I often surpace the 10,000 character limit, so my formatting may look a little odd (due to me removing spaces between paragraphs if I need too, so that is just a warning....).


I accept the format of the debate set out by my opponent.

The resolution is:
Homosexual marriage is morally correct.

I will negate the resolution, my opponent will uphold it. Seeing as the resolution is affirmative, BoP will rest on Pro.

Homosexual marriage: same as marriage, except between two of the same gender.
Marriage: the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.
Moral: concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.
Correct: free from error; in accordance with fact or truth.

You may have the first argument.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting this debate and for setting out basic terms, I will add a few more even though I don't completely feel that some of them are necessary:
Gay/Lesbian: Attracted to same sex.
Bisexual: Attracted to both sexes.
Pansexual: Attracted to all genders and sexualitys.
Marital tax reduction: reduction or complete removal of taxes on assets passed from one to their spouse.
Insurance benefits: This has many meanings, but in this argument I will refer to this term as being able to share plans with lower rates than two separate ones and other benefits that apply to a married couple and not to a un-married one.
Traditional marriage: marriage between a man and a woman and sometimes between a man and many women (this is using the old testaments definition).
Separation between church and state: a term referring to separation between religion and government, not necessarily Christianity.
Gay marriage is in no way morally wrong, and can infarct have many positive effects on the society. I would go as far to say that any modern, first world society, is morally obligated to allow couples of the same sex to marry, especially in locations where marriage comes with benefits (and it most often does, at least in the majority of western first world nations).

Gay, lesbian, bisexual, pansexual (+) people deserve to be allowed to marry the same sex, both to uphold personal/family traditions and to get access to the benefits that go along with being legally married in whatever country they may be in. Benefits that range widely from marital tax reduction to insurance benefits (and many more, depending on the country in which the married couple is living in).

Gay marriage does not personally harm anyone else. In the bible and many other religious texts, sex between a man and a man is a sin and frowned upon, but this does not necessarily mean marriage between a man and a man is a sin (this is likely because most religious texts didn't even address marriage between two people other than a man and a woman/women). Even if you could make the religious argument that non-traditional marriage is considered a direct sin, that does not mean you can outlaw it. Their are many things considered illegitimate or sinful by religious texts (mainly the new and old testaments) that we allow in this country. As times change so must we. As long as gay marriage doesn't immediately affect a person (which it doesn't) it should be allowed. Also legally, in any country with separation between church and state, religion should not effect the governments laws (other than religious freedom which would not relate to two other people doing something your religion frowns upon). I do understand that most first world western nation's governments were formed with religious influence; in the US judeo-christian ideals influenced freedom documents, and in Europe the Church influenced many nations constitutions and other laws and texts, but the intent of most governments was to have separation between church and state.

With gay marriage legal the US government would be able to lower income taxes and the economy would greatly benefit. In New York City after legalizing gay marriage the government reaped 259 million dollars in licensing fees and other wedding related spending. With this extra money for the government it would be able to lower taxes or put the money towards paying the national debt (it wouldn't pay for it completely, not even close, but it could still help). The money spent on the wedding itself would also add to local economies/the economy in general. Businesses and people would be employed for the wedding, money would obviously be spent either back into local economies or into the larger economy/s (of state, national, or anything else).

Due to this being a first argument I am not going to start rebutting things that I assume you will say, so I will end this here.


I'll begin with a constructive:

Observation 1: Definitions

I agree with all definitions as stated except for
1) Traditional Marriage
Proposed Definition:
Traditional marriage: the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.
Reasons to Prefer
a) This definition is easier to understand and debate, and
b) The previous definition is unfair, as it forces me to defend polymonogomy as "traditional marriage."

2) The absence of the term "heterosexual."
Proposed Definition:
Heterosexual: attracted to the opposite gender.

For this debate, I would ask to come to a consensus that there are only 2 genders. Remember, we are debating homosexuality's morality, not how many genders there are.

Observation 2: Harms

1) Homosexuality is a sin.

Almost all religious texts agree: homosexuality is a grave sin. Pro would have you believe the opposite, that "in the bible and many other religious texts, sex between a man and a man is a sin and frowned upon, but this does not necessarily mean marriage between a man and a man is a sin." However, this is far from the case. Religions do not only "frown upon homosexuality," they condemn it.

In Leviticus 18:22, the Bible states, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination (1)."

Again in Leviticus, 20:13, the Bible states, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them (1)."

Romans 1:26-27 states, "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet (1)."

It is then quite clear that Christianity, and by extension Judaism, condemns homosexuality as a sin.

In Islamic tradition, several hadiths (passages attributed to the Prophet Muhammad) condemn gay and lesbian relationships, including the sayings "When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shakes," and "Sihaq [lesbian sex] of women is zina [illegitimate sexual intercourse] (2).

The Quran (7:80-84) states, "...For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds.... And we rained down on them a shower (of brimstone) (3)."

The Quran (4:16) also states, "If two men among you are guilty of lewdness, punish them both. If they repent and amend, Leave them alone (4)."

It is clear that Islam also condemns homosexuality as a sin.

If Pro would care to show any religion that welcomes and regards homosexuality as morally acceptable, I would ask him to do the same as I have, to give at the very least three examples from that religion that show it is morally acceptable, and to make sure these pieces of evidence are taken into context. Otherwise, I'd ask Pro to concede that religion regards homosexuality to be a sin, and therefore, immoral.

2) The belief that "homosexuality doesn't harm anyone" is faulty.

I can think of at least 7 areas where homosexuality harms society, so instead of come up with arguments for every single one in my opening, I'll allow Pro to respond to the ones he believes most important, and we can move on from there:
1) Homosexuality can bring huge financial and emotional stress.
2) The health risks are enormous to the couple themselves and others.
3) Homosexuality means having the morals of the minority forced upon the majority.

4) Homosexuality calls for a redefinition of sexual morality, and with it other sexually related practices will be affected.
5) Homosexuality reduces the number of children born in society.
6) Homosexuality affects people spiritually.
7) Homosexuality harms children adopted by the couple.

Which ones would you like to debate, Pro?

(1) Various Authors,
The Bible, KJV.
Debate Round No. 2


Sanders2k16 forfeited this round.


Please extend my arguments. Hoping for a response from Pro.
Debate Round No. 3


I am extremely sorry for missing my last debate, I honestly forgot about the debate over the weekend (well of course until now). This will not happen again I just had a busy weekend. Again sorry, I will now begin my debate:

I agree with your amended and added definitions. I would like to just state, though, that I did not add a definition for heterosexual as I did not use it in my argument, so I did not think it needed to be defined, at least in that round.

Man: Adult male.

Woman: Adult female.

Girl: Young/non-adult/non-mature female.

Democracy: A system of government (for any nation/kingdom/other) in which all eligible citizens are involved with law and such, through representatives or directly.

Koshrut: The act/law (mitzvah) of keeping kosher.

Kosher: Dietary laws set by the Torah.

Abrahamic Religions: Judaism, Christianity, Islam.

Homosexuality Sin:
As you brought up, just as I did, but with direct quotation, in Judaism intercourse between two men is a sin, but no where in the Torah (the old testament) does it state that marriage between a man and a man is a sin. In ancient Israel punishment was given to a man and a man, but always under the pretense of them sleeping together, at the time any marriage that was not a pre-decided one between a man (usually much older) and a woman (or girl), was inconceivable. But many common modern things were or would have been considered impossible including marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Things such as any form of pure or modified democracy, things such as breaking koshrut (in Judaism) or any level of religion other than highly religious. In ancient Israel, for example, not being the norm of orthodox (different than we see today, not Ashkenazi Orthodox or anything still around) would have been considered blasphemous even though not directly said to be so, the punishment would often be death for not keeping as many tzedakot (laws/commandments) as possible. In conclusion, like I have said, marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman is not a definite sin in the Torah, meaning it is not a sin or even frowned upon in Judaism.

-The con has stated that due to Christianity's religious texts condemning homosexuality, by "extension" it is so for Judaism, this is not true, to put it bluntly, no Jew believes in/cares about/follows the New Testament and it's teachings unique from Judaism.

In Christianity, as the con has set forth, homosexuality is frowned upon, but not neccisarily banned. No punishment is given. Some may feel that the New Testament implies that homosexuality is evil and/or should be banned (which it cannot be, just like how you can't really ban blue eyed people), but due to there not being an exact line/verse saying to do so, we cannot do so and say that we are following the New Testament's teachings and rules.

In Islam, the con has found truth that one of it's holy texts, the Quran, condemns and gives punishment for homosexuality and therefore gay marriage. That is true, but it is the minority of the 3 Abrahamic religions that would directly (basically) condemn gay marriage. But religion, like I have stated before should not play into how a modern first world nation is run. One religions teachings should not be the decider of this issue. I again say one religion (of the 3 Abrahmic) as neither Judaism or Christianity directly bans homosexuality and neither gives punishment, therefore neither bans gay marriage.

The con asked if I would come forward with religion that "welcomes and regards homosexuality as morally acceptable" I say, no. The debate is "Gay Marriage" not "Homosexuality."

If you want me to I will explain the majority of modern Christianity's view on homosexuality, and other non-abrahamic religions, which very clearly do not find issue with homosexuality directly, definitely not gay marriage. I do not mention Judaism here, as the Torah has no problem with gay marriage.

I would like to debate the truth/problem behind the following statements you set forth: "Homosexuality can bring huge financial and emotional stress. . . Homosexuality reduces the number of children born in society. . .Homosexuality harms children adopted by the couple." To save time I want to argue whether your first and third statement are true and whether or not your second statement is actually a problem. Please start by giving you argument.

Lastly what's your response to both modern Judaism and Christianity almost overwhelmingly accepting homosexuality and gay marriage?


David_Debates forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


I hope the con is able to add a closing statment, but if not I assume it is as he thinks I have won!

Gay marriage is something we must give Gay people. They deserve the right to reap the government benefits of actually being married, for one thing, even if you beleive they shouldn't religiously be aloud to marry you have to agree lifelong couples should get these benefits. Gay people do exist and wether the bible and other religious texts hate them, in a modern society they do not cause harm, other than adopting children without parents and paying taxes. They are more likely to be things such as pedophiles, but that is in a large part because of low acceptance of Gay people as children, many studies have found. It's like how bullies often bully due to their own issues. It does not make it ok, but you cannot bring that against all gay people. You can't bring it against African Americans that they are more likely to be in a gang than a white person, due to them only doing that because of less oportunity (in the majority of cases) than their fellow whites.


I apologize for the forfeit, I was out of town Monday-Thursday. I in no way concede that Pro has won this debate, and therefore, I will give a final rebuttal of all Pro's points. I ask the judges to keep in mind that Pro has also forfeited when considering conduct.

To counter your points:

1) Marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman is not a definite sin in the Torah, meaning it is not a sin or even frowned upon in Judaism. (Round 4, Pro)

I would repeat my Round 2 argument, specifically pertaining to Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13. These passages are from what is called the "Torah," or "books of law." In other words, these passages pertain directly to Jewish laws, customs, etc. and outline what is and what isn't a sin. Just the phrasing of the passages themselves show that homosexuality is a grave sin.

Leviticus 18:22
"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination (1)."

Leviticus, 20:13
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them (1)."

Read the article linked under (1) for a Jewish perspective on these passages. Seeing as I am Christian, it may be harder to believe me than a Jew when it pertains to Judaism.

2) No part of the New Testament is binding to Judaism. (Round 4, Pro)

See above. The Torah (from the Old Testament) are both in the Christian and the Jewish Bible. There is overlap between the two religions.

3) Christianity states that no punishment is given to those who engage in homosexuality. (Round 4, Pro)

Christianity states:
We on earth are not give punishment for this sin. God is the benefactor of justice, we are not to "take revenge" or to "judge others hearts." However, this does not mean that we are not to judge others at all, we simply are not to punish sinners, as it is not our place. Read article (2) for more information on wrong judgement and right judgement according to Christianity.

4) There are some religions that do not find homosexuality a sin.

This may be the best non-response I have ever heard. The only religions you name are Christianity and Judaism. Then, you make an incredibly vague response: that "other non-aberhamic religions very clearly do not find issue with homosexuality directly." To the first two, I would ask the judges to look to my responses above. However, I honestly do not know what "other non-aberhamic" religions that Pro is referring to, as he did not name any, so I am unable to respond to these.

5) Harms 1, 2, and 3 are not true or not a harm at all. (Round 4, Pro)

Seeing that it would be unfair to argue without you being able to give a response, I agree to drop these points. I'd ask the judges to disregard these points, as no substantial arguments were made.

6) Lastly what's your response to both modern Judaism and Christianity almost overwhelmingly accepting homosexuality and gay marriage? (Round 4, Pro)

"Tell me what the world is saying today, and I’ll tell you what the church will be saying in seven years."
-Francis Shaffer

The Bible stands. It draws a fine line. However, societal pressures can influence a church, but not the Bible. Modern Christianity and Judaism are churches that have given way under a secular humanistic moral guideline. Does this answer your question?

7) A heap of arguments, thrown into a blender that in no way resembles anything that we debated above. (Round 5, Pro)

Bringing up new arguments in the last round without any evidence whatsoever. Next time, please cite your sources. You say "many studies have found x, y, z." What studies? I have a study in response to Pro's unnamed ones.
"Joint biological parentage, the modal condition for opposite-sex parents but not possible for same-sex parents, sharply differentiates between the two groups on child emotional problem outcomes. The two groups are different by definition. Intact opposite-sex marriage ensures children of the persistent presence of their joint biological parents; same-sex marriage ensures the opposite (3)."

In the end, Pro has failed to
1) Bring any evidence to support his arguments,
2) Fail to sufficiently disprove my arguments, as pertaining to religion, thereby
3) Failing to meet his BoP.

For these reasons, vote Con.

Debate Round No. 5
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by David_Debates 2 years ago
Just a note:
I don't hate homosexual people. I hate homosexuality. I'm not to hate sinners, I'm to hate sin.
Romans 3:23
"For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."
To hate sinners is hypocritical. To hate sin is what God commands.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: Bridget.Ann// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Pro. Reasons for voting decision: I dont see the reason why people are hating on people of their own species. Its not hurting them.

[*Reason for non-removal*] Not an RFD, just a statement of the voter's own views on a vaguely related topic.
No votes have been placed for this debate.