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

Gay marriage should be legalized

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 4 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/1/2011 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,275 times Debate No: 19602
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)




In this debate sources may be cited however it is not a requirment unless you are stateing facts. All other statements may be pure logic.

My argument is as follows

The United states constitution declares all men are created equal. This statement has been branched to include men of different race and women as well. However One major group has been left out. The gays and bisexuals. When you have children and they grow up don't you want what is best for them? don't you want them to marry who they love? They can't if they are gay because their is no law in place for it. With this I propose we legalize gay marriage so that all men are created equal as is stated in the constitution. About 3% of males and 2% of women are gay in the U.S. the total population is about 312,701,764. 5% of that is about 15,635,089. Thats 15,635,089 people who can't get married. Thats a staggering statistic if you ask me.


1st of all gays shouldn't be aloud in the military for several reasons. 1st if they aren't married they could rape other soliders. 2nd being gay is against my religon (Roman Catholic). last they can be gay with the enemy
Debate Round No. 1


when did the military come into this? This debate is over whether or not the institution of marriage should be extended to the gay populace. In response to your argument that they could rape other soldiers there are women in the military too. everyone stands a chance of being raped but the mojority of people are not because of the fact that most people have morals. Further more the Bible NEVER says all homosexuals will go to hell. That is a myth based primarily on the NIV mistranslation of 1 Corinthians 6:9 plus the modern Christian mis-interpretation of Revelation 22:15. Those are the most often used verses to teach that homosexuals will go to hell. Fortunately for saved homosexuals and unfortunately for those who use those verses against us, the verses do not teach or imply that homosexuals will go to hell. Every homosexual - gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people - will go to heaven IF they trust Jesus Christ as their Savior. I Cor 6:9 and Rev 22:15 describe pagan worshipers of the fertility goddess, not born again gay men or lesbian women or bisexuals or transsexuals. Teaching that homosexuals will go to hell based on 1 Corinthians 6:9 occurs because many Christians misunderstand the Greek word, arsenokoitai.

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind (arsenokoitai)," 1 Cor 6:9, KJV

"Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders (arsenokoitai)" 1 Cor 6:9, NIV

So no where does it specifically say that being gay is a sin. And once again, think about it. Do you not want your descendants to be able to marry who they love?

and pure common logic


1st you have no plan text so the neg wins on topicality, so therefor noone should trust your agruement T is apriori.
The Bible speaks out against being Gay:
Romans 1:26-32, "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. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them."

Leviticus 18:22, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." An abomination is anything that is disgusting to God.

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."

When speaking of something so highly subjective as morals, I believe that it is impossible to objectively classify one system of morality better than the other, as it is said in Latin "De gustibus non disputandum est". For this reason, I will simply say that yes, it is possible that Gay Marriage must be legalized in order to uphold some arbitrarily selected morality, but legalizing it would not uphold all morality. To prove this, I present the KKK. Their morality would not be upheld through the legalization of Gay Marriage. Therefore, I conclude whilst Gay Marriage might uphold some morality through legalization, it would only uphold a single morality, not morality in general. Gay marriage doesn't need to be legalized in order to uphold morality. Even though it might uphold some thoughts of morality, some standards of morality can be held up without it, meaning that is needn't be legalized to uphold morality. Morality can't be definitively proved, so I think I win. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 2


"For this reason, I will simply say that yes, it is possible that Gay Marriage must be legalized in order to uphold some arbitrarily selected morality, but legalizing it would not uphold all morality." the con stated this in their last argument...

he has given this to the pro in stating that it will uphold some morality, Is upholding 0% morality better than 2% morality? furthermore this is not a policy debate thus meaning topicality? this is not pertaining to this debate, even if it does he accepted it as being topical by accepting the challenge. Furthermore in response to all your bible arguments here is one for you Matthew 7:1 "Judge not, that ye be not judged." Does not this mean you should not attempt to decide who gets to be punished based on the gifts they are bestowed with? We were given free will. It is not the place of humans to decide if it is wrong for us to believe that the one of our most primal instincts, love, is wrong if directed toward a member of the same sex.

And your example of the KKK is not moral in any way shape or form. Is it our place to say that just because you are different we can string you up, beat you, light you on fire, and hang you from a tree? So who cares if the KKK's "morals" aren't upheld when there morals would set us back from our beliefs that EVERYONE is created equal


Since this debate involves issues of what the law should be, a large part of this debate will necessarily involve the use of extra-legal arguments. This isn't to say that existing precedent and case law is irrelevant, only that it is fallible and not the final say. Pro seems to treat this as a purely legal debate. However, a debate on how the law should be will have to involve arguments of an extra-legal nature. This is why courts commonly solicit the testimony of expert witnesses and use amicus curiae briefs.

Equal Protection and Due Process are Irrelevant

"So, the state's granting marriage licenses only to opposite-sex couples is based on the nature of marriage and does not constitute unjust discrimination. The state grants a license to do X only to someone presumptively capable of doing X. It is no more unjust discrimination to deny marriage licenses to couples of the same sex than to twelve-year olds, to those already married, or to polyamorous groups of three or more sexual partners: in each case, the license is denied simply because the individuals in question are unable to form with each other the kind of union that marriage is." [7]
This is because marriage, properly understood, is between one man and one woman. As I have argued, only the conjugal conception of marriage is able to justify the state's involvement in marriage.

I eagerly await Pro's counterargument.

Debate Round No. 3


In the last argument all he states is that it is not a purely legal debate and that not allowing gay marriage is not discrimination. However this in essence is not an argument he is floundering for things to use against this. He does not have any concrete arguments which is why he switches every single round. Throughout this debate i have carried the main ideas i have presented and refuted his arguments. I have not treated this as purely legal however. I have considered the extra legal options as well however their needs to be a law in place in order for this to be accepted by the court. States have legalized this in the past and it works. And as your definition is a union between a man and a woman then all that needs to be done is change it to a union between two people.

With all this in mind i once again would like to recall you to the key points of this debate so far for each side:
All people are created equal
Everyone has the inherent right to marry who they love
And responses to the topicality, Military, Religious, And legal arguments presented by the Con
Gays will rape soldiers in the military (has not argued since refuted)
not topical because no plan text (has not argued since refuted)
Religion prohibits (did not argue in last round)
Not Legal

With this it is plain the Pro wins the debate


1st of all I thought @ 1st the plan text was gays in military obvesly communication is not thing. 2nd NO PLAN TEXT means no topicality and with topicality being the most inportant item in debate that is flown to me. 3rd yes everyone is equal. 4th gays can't reporduce, its like tryin to stick 2 magnets together at same end they reject. 5th ever heard of soverty its when the people of the state choose the law well obvesely the people don't want gay marrage
Debate Round No. 4


The con topicality argument was let go in round 3 thus meaning he shouldnt have been able to bring it back up if we are following policy rules. However as i stated he accepted it as "topical" when he accepted the debate thus meaning he is not allowed to aregue that i am breaking rules. its like going to a bank after deliberating it and then complaining about it being unfair.

He agrees with me that everyone is created equal thus meaning there shouldn't be discrimination. He has also let the religion arguments HE brought up drop. Silence is complience thus meaning it becomes the pro's. And with "Soverty"? im pretty sure you mean popular sovereignty which was used in the days of slavery and look where that led, To a civil WAR. We can't afford fighting ourselves right now.

And his argument of gays not being able to reproduce there are plenty of children open for adoption. They can choose to adopt or they can use surrogates. There are plenty of options available.

With this i can only see a pro vote.

Note: Thank you all the debaters out there who took the time to read through all the arguments we have made on this topic. Please vote and/or leave a comment


1st of all in debate silance is confirmance so when the AFF. droped T they agreed they were untopicall. 2nd okay sovergeignty, but we got to choose if we didn't have free will that would be communism
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Varrack 3 years ago
Posted by Conspiracy_Theory 6 years ago
@Calvincambridge ..........
Posted by InVinoVeritas 6 years ago
It looks like someone used CON's account and typed an argument for him, because he somehow became extremely eloquent mid-debate.
Posted by mythster 6 years ago
How the hell is Con winning. He writes like an autistic 5 year old (sorry to be so frank), and he supports his idea with nonsensical comments that have nothing to do with the topic being discussed. Its humorous how bias an audience can be. One must actually READ the debate before voting. Call me rash but I'm going to assume all of the Con voters were Conservatives.
Posted by Calvincambridge 6 years ago
gays are basically women with the wrong parts
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by logicrules 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Pros arguments based on equality are specious as marriage is a contract not a right. Con citing Scripture is irrelevant to US law, so both should lose.
Vote Placed by Lordknukle 6 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, overall, had a better argument with more logical facts to back it up.
Vote Placed by JakeBoatman96 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Voting points are honest. Not biased. "I never said that gays shouldn't get married, I simply stated that they shouldn't get married to members of the same sex!"
Vote Placed by Buckethead31594 6 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con has not yet realized that the Bible does not stand as a credible source for debate on this topic within a secular society. (I've learned that the hard way) Points to Pro for conduct and fluidity; Con didn't address Pro with the formality that he deserved. Also, Con seemed to lose focus towards the end; including irrelevat ideas in his arguments.