The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 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  
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: 2/16/2014 Category: People
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,574 times Debate No: 46089
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (13)
Votes (0)




Gay marriage should be legalized. To my future opponent: Thank you for this debate, I'll be looking forward to what you have to say.


Thank you for imposing this debate. I look forward to it.

Before we begin, I would like to make my views known. I do not support gay marriage, but I support civil unions. I think gays should have the same rights as heterosexual couples (except for adoption) and do not think gays should be judged or hated.

I will be using sources to back my argument and will quote from the Bible.

Good luck.
Debate Round No. 1


Gay marriage should be legalized because this is a step forward to more equality. Gay people should have the right to formally be able to call the love of their lives their spouses. The Bible might state that gay people shouldn't be married or even together but the Bible and a few Christians have a few twists with this statement (I'm a Christian myself so don't take this to heart ). There will be elaboration on these statements but I'm interested in my opponent's response.


I thank my opponent for her response.

Con sees it necessary to quote from the Bible in future rounds, acknowledging the fact that both Pro and Con believe in the Bible.
Con points out the history of heterosexual marriage and how it has changed only in recent decades.

For thousands of years, humanity has practiced heterosexual marriage. Before the year 2000, there was no law anywhere in the world that allowed same-sex marriage. This small group of homosexual partnerships over only a little bit of time suddenly declares that they can define marriage for the entire world. Their claim to marriage does not comply with the fact that no such marriages have ever existed in the history of Earth.

Con points out that Pro's argument is invalid in the sense that it contradicts her own religious beliefs.

By supporting gay marriage, you are going against your own religion. Your profile states you are Catholic. According to the American Catholic website, "The Catholic Church opposes gay marriage and the social acceptance of homosexuality and same-sex relationships, but teaches that homosexual persons deserve respect, justice and pastoral care. The Vatican and Pope John Paul II are speaking out against the growing number of places that recognize same-sex marriages."

Although Pope John Paul II is deceased, the next pope, Benedict XVI, also condemns gay marriage. He states that the Roman Catholic Church "cannot approve of legal initiatives that imply a re-evaluation of the life of the couple and the family."

Even the current pope, Francis, denounces same-sex marriage. In a conversation with Rabbi Abraham Akorka, "...Francis said same-sex marriage is a weakening of the institution of marriage " that has existed for thousands of years " and is 'forged according to nature and anthropology.' "

So...what? You don't believe what your own church believes? Who are you to speak out against it? I haven't even said anything from the Bible but have yet shown that your religious beliefs don't make a whole lot of sense. Former President Clinton, who is Catholic, passed the Defense of Marriage Act, which reads, " "In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word "marriage" means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word "spouse" refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." "

Can Pro deny what has been said?

Con awaits Pro's response.
Debate Round No. 2


My opponent states that heterosexual marriage has been the only practice on Earth before the year 2000. Yet, that's not a valid reason not to make it legal. It doesn't matter that gay marriage hasn't occurred in the past; what does that have to do with the present? Doing something unique that gives us an upgrade in civil rights isn't an issue.

My opponent also states that I'm Catholic with an abundant amount of Catholic information that would make me look like a fool for contradicting myself. My response to that is that my profile never stated that I was Catholic; it said "Christian-Baptist". As a Christian, I am contradicting myself with the beliefs in gay marriage. Here's the thing about my type of Christianity; I believe in majority of the Bible, but not all of it. The Bible was inspired by God, created by men. Men are bound to sin; there's no work that a man can create without imperfections to it.

Gay marriage should still be a right, despite my religion. Saying that gay marriage shouldn't be illegal because of religious objections is absolutely hypocritical for this country. This country promotes freedom of religion; not everyone's religion states that homosexuality is wrong. Our country's main argument with banning gay marriage is the Bible; since when did this country stuck to one religion?

But, my respect goes out to my opponent for his Catholic research. Let's see if he can pull off the same type of research for my correct religion.


Pro admits that she is contradicting herself with her religious beliefs in gay marriage. Pro's argument on gay marriage consisted of her opinion only, with no facts or sources to back her argument. Pro dismisses history as not mattering.

History does matter. We should look at patterns in history and apply the works and actions of great leaders to our modern world. Our nation and globe could use the genius minds of past leaders in today's era.

Like Catholics, Baptists are also not in favor of same-sex marriage. As well as Catholics, "...the majority of established Baptist churches condemn homosexual behavior."

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" -Leviticus 18:22
"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." -Romans 1:27
"Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." -Genesis 2:24

Is this not what your church teaches? Or is politics more important than God?
"Picking and choosing which parts of the bible to follow is an exercise in pride."

May I also address the subtopic of equality. In U.S. history, we found our nation discriminating against rights for women and blacks. Although I do support civil unions and rights for gays, let me point out the fact the blacks are born black, women are born women, but gays are not born gay. There is no evidence anywhere that support homosexuals being born the way they are. In fact, quite the opposite is evident. "'The human genome sequence was decoded in 2001, there is no 'Gay' gene. If homosexuals were, 'born that way', how do you explain a gay person changing his status to straight? You cannot claim that has never happened, because it has." A person's homosexuality is based on their own personal upbringing, on how they were raised. There is nothing that proves that homosexuality has been and always will be part of a gay person. Like heterosexuality, it's a life choice.

So if you knew someone who cloned himself, would it be "equality" for him to marry his clone? What stops him from marrying his cat? According to your argument, this is okay because these are two beings that love each other. The only thing that steps in the way of him doing that is that it is "gross", but this is an inconsistency showing how many gay marriage supporters do think homosexuality is "gross", but want people to be able to live and love as they choose.

I would like to see my opponent top my argument or at least provide a convincing one. Something that I haven't heard many times before. Con awaits Pro's response.
Debate Round No. 3


My opponent states that I stated my opinion with no facts or sources to back up my argument. Interesting. The only thing I stated was that gay marriage will upgrade our civil rights and that saying gay marriage shouldn't be illegal because of religious objections would be hypocritical for this country because we're promoting freedom of religion and that's the main thing that's being pointed out when it comes down to gay people; the Bible. These aren't opinions; they're facts. The only opinion I might have included was that it wasn't an issue. Now that I elaborated myself, let's go further more into my opponent's statement.

My opponent stated that I said that history didn't matter. I never said history didn't matter; I'm saying that just because it hasn't been occurring in the past, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be occurring today. The things that we did in the past should not stop us from what we should do today.

My opponent deliberately ignored my whole entire paragraph on what I believe in and what the Bible is. My opponent just wanted to point out what most Baptist Christians did, trying to make it seem as if I'm a contradicting traitor. The Bible was inspired by God, created by men (men, who are bound to sin). Then, he questions my faith. My church does teach the scriptures my opponent has listed.

My opponent stated, quote on quote, "Or is politics more important than God?"

My response: Politics has nothing to do with American citizens. If anything, I despise politics. My opponent was the one who brought politics up in the conversation. He needs to decide whether he's going to use politics or God against me (although the Bible was, yet I say again, inspired by God, created by men; every word in the Bible isn't necessarily from God). I never said anything about a politic. I'm a Christian who respects everyone's beliefs and not everyone believes in God; accepting this fact, I believe that we shouldn't make something illegal due to a certain religion; you're making that religion become more powerful than other religions.

My opponent brings up the fact that not everyone is born a homosexual and not everyone is born a heterosexual. Good. I'm glad that my opponent has noticed that it's based on "their own personal upbringing". As far as how they were raised, that's not necessarily true; there are people raised as Christians who are homosexuals.


Back to that paragraph, people pick to love whoever they want to love. We're taught to love people by the content of their character, by their hearts. Why does it matter if they have the same reproductive organ?

My opponent puts words into my mouth that has never been said or he's just putting out some words that contradicts himself just so he can oppose against them. The argument was about whether or not gay marriage should be legalized. I said that gay people should have the right to get married. I didn't say that's it's okay for a cat and a man to get married or anything related to that matter when it came down to legalization of relationships (if a man did have a relationship with his cat, I'm not going to judge; I'm not going to say anything; this topic is completely irrelevant to the argument).

Speaking of irrelevance, my religion isn't relevant to this argument. I only mentioned my religion so I wouldn't come off as offensive.

Here is some of the pros of gay marriage:

States that legalized gay marriage have lower divorce rates:

This is all I had to say for this round. This is a goodbye until round five.


My opponent states that gay marriage is not a political issue. This is definitely not true. Gay marriage has always been a political affair. If so then why has it been such a hot topic among politicians and the government today? Political can be defined as: "exercising or seeking power in the governmental or public affairs of a state, municipality, etc." Since gay marriage legalization has been a public affair in many different states and has been seeking power and acceptance through the government, then Pro's claim is false.

My opponent says that I need to decide whether or not to use politics or religion against her. I can use both, thank you. If she wanted me to choose one or the other then she would have stated terms in Round 1. Since she did not, there aren't any rules stating whether I can or cannot use religion, politics, or both against her in this debate. May I also add that since she dismissed politics as something not associated with gay marriage, her two claims contradict each other.

My opponent then remarks that I stated that not everyone is born a heterosexual. I never said that. Maybe she should read the entire paragraph before making these claims. Also, some homosexuals are raised Christians, but this is not what I meant. One's upbringing is usually more influenced by what their parents or guardians are like versus what their religion believes. For example, one could have bad, backbiting parents but still go to church every Sunday. They look up to their parents more than their preacher, and if their parents beliefs are unstable about certain religious teachings then their children will likely regard that. Further, I believe that homosexual practices are brought up by sexual experiences at a young age (Ex. #1: if a guy thinks that there are no attractive girls in his area, but there are a bunch of good-looking guys, then.. ;Ex. #2: a girl thinks it's wrong to like another girl who is sort of "hot" but is then told that is is perfectly fine, or encouraged, then..). So really, it doesn't exactly come down to being Christian. Some people have homosexual urges that they don't fight hard enough against, or dismiss their religion as not as important as what they are feeling.

As for the Bible, Pro mentions how it was inspired by God, created by men. If the Bible condemns gay marriage, but is inspired by Him, wouldn't His prophets, seers, and revelators know by His word whether or not gay marriage is a sin? Or is her argument saying that His prophets were wrong? I am elaborating on this subject because Pro has still not made it clear why she contradicts her own religion. She says she respects other peoples' beliefs, but why does she think that she has to agree with their claim to marriage even when her own faith condemns this sort of behavior? My philosophy is that Christians get caught up with all the political buzz that they feel like they need to agree with the public opinion, even if it does contradict their own beliefs. Since Pro has not made it known why, my case stands.

Allow me to lay out a few more reasons to support my argument:

1. Procreation. I think that anyone who reads this can agree that humanity was meant to procreate. If so, why should we encourage nonproductive behavior? Countries that have a lower death rate (i.e. Austria, Ukraine, Italy, Japan, Belgium, and others...) than birth rate are doomed to fail. If we legalize gay marriage, the birth rate in America will fall and will eventually lead to America's breakdown. So if everyone is gay, where does the next generation come from? How are we supposed to "be fruitful and multiply" (for us Christians) if we are encouraging the decline of procreation in our nation?

2. Heterosexual marriage allows the continuance of the family, our people, and our nation. Marriage and family is the fundamental training ground for values, morals, human responsibility, and a work ethic. Mothers and fathers have different roles. For example, my father taught me how to work hard and my mother taught me proper etiquette. I could list all the differing characteristics between mothers and fathers, but the point is that if a child has two mothers or two fathers then the development and upbringing of a child is somewhat unbalanced. The majority of people will tell you that a mother and a father is best for a child, as compared to two parents of the same gender.

3. Redefining marriage. As I said earlier, marriage has always been between a man and a woman. This small group of people over a little bit of time can't suddenly change the definition for the entire world what as always been. That's like saying a strawberry is now an orange because oranges are being discriminated against by strawberries. It clearly doesn't make sense. Also, by redefining marriage we will be weakening the view of marriage itself. It would deny the importance of mothers and fathers and further distance the needs of children to be under the consent of a married couple.
For more consequences:

Greater risk of suicide among gay couples and other statistics:

Even more cons of gay marriage:

Before we become a gay America, we should review the consequences.
Debate Round No. 4


QueenChipotle forfeited this round.


In conclusion, I would like to say that gay marriage legalization will uproot America. Birth rates will decrease, the family structure will be weakened, and redefining this sacred ordinance will lead the indoctrination of what children are taught. Same-sex legalization will encourage other practices that are now considered immoral, such as pedophilia, incest, and bestiality. It will only take a matter of time before people begin to consider equality as the legalization of all lewd methods of sexuality that have ever been practiced. Soon homosexual marriages will be forced upon churches by the government, dismissing the separation of church and the state to what we now behold as being "politically correct". We are beginning to see the irony of what equality is as demonstrated by same-sex marriage supporters: we will need to tolerate homosexuality, but homosexual activists will not have to tolerate our views.

I believe I have won this argument. I have provided more sources, more arguments, and debated all 5 rounds, whereas my opponent provided less sources, less arguments, and forfeited the last round. Unlike my opponent, I will admit I made a few mistakes, but I corrected them in later rounds. I thank my opponent for the debate and wish her luck in future debates. May the best debater win.
Debate Round No. 5
13 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by 9spaceking 5 years ago
pro should have lost, arguments were almost tied but pro had bad conduct last round.
Posted by USN276 6 years ago
Just wanted to point out one thing.

"In conclusion, I would like to say that gay marriage legalization will uproot America. Birth rates will decrease" That sounds good to me. With a growing world wide population moving on to 9 billion in just under 50 years, I think a population decrease sounds great to me.

Con, why do you feel it is necessary to take other peoples liberties because you don't agree with them? You exemplify a nanny state ruler. It doesn't matter whether you feel it will have negative effects on the country. People's liberties trump your religious beliefs and some outcomes you feel are "negative". This is the same thing with your marijuana arguments. Mind your own business and don't control other peoples lives. Worry about YOURSELF, not about others. I can assure you legalization of gay marriage won't effect your life.
Posted by Conservative101 6 years ago
This was my first debate! Pretty psyched.
Thanks for supporting me. If any of you are interested, I found a really good website listing reasons why gay marriage shouldn't be legalized --->
Posted by michael90000 6 years ago
Marriage was created for man and woman. That is the driving and fundamental factor of why marriage exists. This shouldn't be changed, especially ignorantly.
Posted by Andrew.Cerean 6 years ago
Believe it or not, I recently learned that some people on this site engage in a debate, start a forum, and play the devils advocate, and here how other people respond. They then take the best response ideas, and submit them as their own debate.

Its really dumb. I started catching on. Just look at your opponents discussion feed or recent posts. Sometimes they will simply give you information that is not their own.
Posted by Conservative101 6 years ago
Thanks for your feedback Andrew. I'm new to this site, this being my first debate, so I wasn't exactly sure how debates were layed out and whether or not we are accusing our opponent much or just laying out the facts. If I do lose, oh well. I did my best, I learned some new stuff, and I'm more prepared for the next. I guess it just takes some getting used to. But there's still a chance I might win, so vote for me anyhow ;)
Posted by Andrew.Cerean 6 years ago
Unfortunately, Pro will probably win the debate because she is preaching to the choir. I have presented valid points on how homosexuality is a sexual addiction (A debate I had earlier), similar to an addiction a child molestor has or people who are into bestiality and incest. The only difference is the criminality of pedophilia, bestiality, and incest. Homosexuality is merely a form of sexual deviancy/taboo.
Posted by Andrew.Cerean 6 years ago
ILL_logic, how is the bible not a reliable source? How is the Bible any different from science books that you read.

For you I have a very simple question. Can you disprove anything in the Bible through actual events in history or through science? I doubt you can, because if that were true, the Bible would have been dismissed a very long time ago, but that is not the case.
Posted by Andrew.Cerean 6 years ago
I like the quote you posted from my debate earlier about the Human Genome being decoded. For some odd reason, people still cling on the notion that genetics are the cause of their sexual attraction. Sexuality is developed throughout a persons life, and is reinforced with sexual acts that eventually lead to their overall sexual attraction or taboo.
Posted by Jozza1172 6 years ago
Im with pro... Con you are stating irrelevent things and twisting them to make Pro seem like an idiot. seriously. nobody cares that she contradicts her religion. im the worst catholic you'll ever meet. PLUS. your comment on "Picking and choosing which parts of the bible to follow is an exercise in pride." 1 is BS. if it was to believe then yes it is true. if we were to follow all of the bible or none of it. id go with none fo the bible. because. technically the bible is ok with slavery. well that contradicts everything you stand for. great argument. read into your evidence before you post it.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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