The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
5 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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/9/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 915 times Debate No: 15277
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)




I know that a lot of people probably have debated this subject before but I hate how the government discourages two people who love each other because they are with the same sex. I disagree with it very much, just because it's two men or two women doesn't mean they shouldn't love each other. I, myself, am not "gay", I am not interested in the same sex, but I don't think it's fair that just because people like others of the same sex are being slandered and treated differently because of their sexual preference. I know everyone says: "Life isn't fair." and I agree with that, but we don't have to make i worse because two people are different. Why do you think that there are so many riots include Gay Marriage? It's because the government doesn't want two people of the same sex too marry, I don't know why it's their own fault. It's my opinion and my opinion probably doesn't matter much but I'm willing to speak out to the people who are suffering and being treated like dirt because of there sexual preference.


So first of all, I thank my opponent for initiating such a debate. I've debated this issue several times here on DDO and I'm glad to have the opportunity to do so again.

Now before I actually get into this debate, I want to frame out the Con's stance and plan of action.
First, I will provide some observations regarding the resolution, Second I will present the Con stance, third I will negate the Pro's arguments, and finally with whatever remaining time I have- I will state some brief closing thoughts.

So first for some observations on this topic: First there is a burden on both the Pro and the Con that must be met in order to win this debate. The Pro must prove; be it by empirical evidence or solid logic that either Same Sex marriage is a good thing, or there is no harm in it. The Con's is accordingly the stark in opposition; I must prove either that Same Sex marriage is detrimental, or that there is harm in it.

So with that said, I will do just that. Now of course in the sum time of an 8,000 character debate I am not going to have time to advocate this on too many levels, so in order to do it justice I will present the Con on only one level.

Same Sex marriage by individuals impedes on the religious freedoms of other.

Now what could I possibly mean by that? How could the marriage of two homosexuals impede on the religious rights of others? Simple, the fact is that there is a stark differentiation between a marriage and a Civil Union. You see as far back as we can trace in our american culture, Marriage is a religious practice in the Judeo-Christian society, meaning that Marriage is something belonging to those of an abrahamic faith (Christians, Jews, and Muslims) so by taking this term which is important to these people and giving it to people of a lifestyle in which these religion's doctrines disagree, you therefore impose and impede on the rights of these other people.

So what this means is that if there is any alternative to this (Not that I support homosexuality or Civil Unions) it must be Civil Unions. While the religious crowds will still disagree with it, it would no longer impede on their rights.

With that said, I will content to move to my opponent's arguments.
Now reviewing what my opponent has said, he admits that the entirety of his last speech is all his own opinions. And while I disagree with his latter statements, that his opinions don't matter much; he has little in the way of warranting his claims. you see there are three manner of arguments, Ethos (an appeal to ethics) Pathos (and appeal to emotions) and Logos (An appeal to logic). Well we see here that my opponent has neither Ethos or Logos, and their Pathos is not being used to further their claim but simply to express their stance.
If we want to keep this debate a debate, then we must not count this as good enough. Going into a debate nothing can be a given, but instead everything needs to be proven and explained!

and so finally I close with this, My opponent's burden of proving the topic true as thus far not been achieved. we can see no reason in the realm of this debate to vote that Same Sex Marriage is either Good/Positive. However we do understand that on the inverse the Same Sex Marriage is bad because it limits and imposes the rights of religious communities.

Since there still two more rounds left, and I feel that this is the area I want to focus my clash, with this I hand the debate back over to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1


I understand that I have to admit that my opponent is right that I did not state my arguement clearly, but I also have to admit I didn't understand parts of his or her argument and by the way I'm a girl not a boy thank you very much, but I'm not illiterate I'm just at a low grade level. This may be a stupid question to my opponenet but I hae to ask, how would you feel? To be specific, how would you feel if your partner was of the same sex and you loved and respected that person enough to take vows with them and you couldn't because the governent wouldn't let you? Again just my opnions, also people always say that you will go to hell if you are homosexual. I go to church and I am very religious, but that is probably the only thing that I don't agree with, I think that the people who pull that are just looking for excuses to say homosexuality is "wrong". I'm not slandering the bible or people who agree with that. Think about it though, god put us here on earth to live, and that men and women get married and bear children and to respect others around them, how are we following that if we slander "gay" people and call them out on their sexual preference, I think the only reason that: "you will be sent to hell", is because that if you are "gay" you can't reptroduce. I believe that even if "gay" people can't produce they should be allowed to be married becuase they love each other. I mean come on, a man and a women who hate eachother can get married but two "gay" people who love eachother can't. I think thats a bunch of bul; again why are there so many riots including gay people? Because the government won't get over themselves and let two people who love eachother marry.


I thank my opponent for their rebuttal, and before I actually get into this debate, I would like to profusely apologize for giving any indication that my opponent was a gender other than what she is. and for my opponent's clarification, I am a male.

Now going on again, I never said you where illiterate. Nor did I give any indication that I doubted you intelligence. As for your remarks that you where in a low grade, if this is true then why does your profile say that you're twenty years old?

also going on to my opponent's hypothetical question, on how I would feel if I where a homosexual who wished to marry some-one who was my gender, but was unable to do so because it where illegal. The simple answer is I just am not able to answer this question, That's like asking me how I would feel if I where a woman and having my period. I cannot give you an opinion I've never had.

Going on, my opponent also spoke on the morality of homosexuality; first of all that is no what this debate is about, we are not here to argue whether or not being homosexual is good or bad, but whether they should have the right to get married. Second, on your argument "I go to church and I am very religious, but that is probably the only thing that I don't agree with" this really disgusts me on many levels. Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any-more than standing in a garage makes you a car. Also a sexual preference is not love, it is lust. I mean tell me this, if there was really nothing different, if it was really all the same either way and you truly believed "love is love" then why bother tacking that word "gay" on there at all? It's just love so it's all the same right?
No. Love is not a feeling, love is not a sexual attraction, love is none of that! Love is something that runs much deeper than that. It's a caring glance from a stranger, a hug from your mother, the words "you can" when the whole world says you can't. I could say much, much, more on this subject; but I've already wasted enough time writing about something off-topic. That's another debate for another day.

Now going on I would like to point out that nothing my opponent has written after this point in her prior speech has anything to do with the topic at hand. She gives us no reason either logical or empirical to vote for Same Sex Marriage, but instead continues on this tangent where she instead chooses to rant about something completely off-topic.

Now as for my own arguments in the last speech, my opponent has not attacked it; in fact she agreed with me and conceded that it was true. So reviewing the debate thus far, I've already won.
My opponent has not met their burden of proof, while I have.

Vote Con
I now hand the debate back over to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 2


moonlightfight forfeited this round.


My opponent has forfeited, vote Con :3
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by pheonixduprese 7 years ago
If I, as a gay person, were to accept this and argue AGAINST gay marriage, would that make me a bad person who turns away from their, uh, "inherent characteristics," or would it make me a good person who is willing to accept challenges?
Posted by Cobo 7 years ago
Was that even an opening?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 7 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Con gets conduct points for pro's forfeit and neither offered a solid argument.
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 Checkmark-1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeit, and assertion without warrant from Pro.