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

Legalization of gay marriage

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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: 7/15/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,166 times Debate No: 35628
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)




I taking the pro argument believe that gay marriage should be legal. I believe that is a civil right and a necessity. Con will take the side and show why gay marriage should not be legalized. We will argue this from a federal(each and every state level), do not take the stand of legalization on state levels. If you are against it take the time to show why gay marriage is wrong, and should not be legalized.


I will be arguing Con, that gay marriage should be illegal. It is not a civil right that can be had in the context of the United States' history or founding principles, and would undermine the basis for our other civil rights.
Debate Round No. 1


I will keep my opening statement short and simple. The main opposition to gay marriage at the moment is the Church. While I am aware our nation was founded on Christian principles, we as a civilization have evolved. Our Christian ancestors also believed in owning slaves up until the reformation. It took many years, and long hard battles but finally people of a different skin color had the same opportunity as others. When Martin Luther King was fighting for civil rights , it was not simply limited to skin color(while that was the primary issue of the time). The fight for civil rights is that all men are created equal regardless of skin color, race, sexual orientation and even religion. When we limit a gay couple from getting married we are discriminating against them and this is a civil injustice.

The only argument that can be made against this is when you accept that marriage is a union that was founded by the church, but it is much more than that now. Even if gay couples were granted a civil union, and had the same rights as married couples we are still discriminating against them. While marriage is a church institution it falls in some regards into state matters, because marriage has to be recognized by the government. We have adopted separation of church and state for a reason, so that religious beliefs do not hinder matters of politics. Denying someone the right to be married because of their sexual preference is discrimination to the highest degree, and is a civil injustice.


My opponent rightfully says our nation was founded on Christian principals, but he also says we have evolved beyond that. I can't argue that many people don't care all that much about the old principals any more.

So if an organization evolves beyond the principals upon which their laws are written, what are the laws worth? They are outdated. How do we decide what our new principals are that determine our new laws and rights? Different principals would mean different rights, so this must be determined.

In the case of homosexuality, it was determined that they are no longer immoral deviants by a change in general public opinion, and no transcendent principal was used. If the swaying of public opinion is all that is needed to determine morality and principal, the outcome is naturally that no rights are fundamental, nothing is foundational, and everything is morally relative, depending on public opinion. We are no longer a Republic built on law, but a Democracy built on public opinion.

Oh no! The slippery slope fallacy?

Not really. Back up and see how this started. It goes back WAY farther than the 1960's, and far deeper than sexual preferences. The principals on which our law and order are founded are considered outdated and discarded. (We evolved beyond our principals, remember?) Without the principals, the laws that allow law enforcement to impose order are irrelevant, and some of them realize that, because they don't really take the principals these laws are based on seriously. This law, and that law are ignored by courts because they're outdated. From a more ignorant time.

So law enforcement is lax in providing order. (This may be part of the reason so many cops like to take advantage of people's ignorance of their right to be free from unnecessary search and seizure to go through your car without a warrant. Constitutionally, you have no obligation to consent.) Individuals don't care to provide proper order in their own lives. Our new ways and principals are better. So what great new principals are they based on? Apparently, if you can sway enough people to your way of thinking, that makes you the Transcendent One of Principal. Until your influence wanes, and the masses follow someone else.

It's not that allowing gay marriage will lead to other things, like bestiality. When we ignored God, we ignored the transcendent principals given by the only transcendent and wise God. Ignoring that kind of advice leads to every wrong thing.

Slippery Slope? Nope. More like kicking the chair out from under the hang man, it just takes a moment for your body to stretch out and your head to be pulled along with your feet, and you realize this is not a good thing. Unreasoned obscure tradition (inertia) is pretty much the only thing keeping the noose from getting too tight around Uncle Sam's neck.

Gay marriage, just like many other things, should not be legalized and accepted because the only good source for moral principals, and the judge of us all, says we should not approve of what he tells us is evil.
Debate Round No. 2


My opponent stated in his argument that

"So if an organization evolves beyond the principals upon which their laws are written, what are the laws worth? They are outdated. How do we decide what our new principals are that determine our new laws and rights? Different principals would mean different rights, so this must be determined."

The foundations of anything can always change depending on the circumstance. Not just with the example of a company but with any fundamental principle. I can even say this is true with Christianity. Centuries ago when Galileo and other scholars determined that they world was spherical, they would be tried and killed by the church for opposing the principles on which the church and bible stated. i do not even want to think what would have happened if evolution was mentioned during that time period. As to date now since more evidence has come to support the came the catholic church backs both evolution as a fact, and that the earth is spherical. Both of these views are help by high up in the Catholic church including the Arch bishop of Canterbury. With what my opponent was hinting at that once something is founded, those core values and principals should always be upheld. This is a fallacy.

Indeed our nation was founded on certain principles. As i stated earlier, some of those principles included having people as slaves. This is one belief that has changed and commonly accepted among everyone. There is a word that is used when studying the bible called Hermeneutics which is the art of text interpretation. This art should even be applied to common text. In an essence it is studying what the author intended for the text to mean and not what we want to perceive it as. When we look at the founding principles of our nation as a hole, they had a specific meaning on which the wrote those principles. That i do agree on. Where i differ is the fact that you are saying those beliefs should not change, ever. What was morally acceptable 100 years ago will change irregardless of what we want. Morality is subjective and very dependent on how we integrate it into society. Meaning what was moral will change whether we want it to or not. Sex is commonplace in America now, slaves are free, drugs are being legalized. America is changing and some outdated policies need to be replaced. The same way we changed and provided freedom for slaves, we should offer equal opportunity for sexual orientation other wise it is bias. The church is the only thing stopping legalization. Where as we were found on Christian principles, we already saw fit to separate church and state. Christians views should be help within the church. The viable argument would be not to make marriage a matter of the state. Howbeit this is impossible. It being a matter of the state, the church should have no influence over this.


The foundation of the Catholic Church is the Papacy, not the inerrant Bible. They state as much, as seen here. [1]
Even if Christ did mean that Peter was to be the lead apostle in beginning the church, Constantine and a succession of Popes have misused this passage to defend the outlawing of Bibles in the language of the common people, so people would see the Catholic priesthood and Papacy as intercessors between them and God, concealing the truth that the temple curtain was torn open upon the crucifixion of Christ, allowing all believers access to the Holy of Holies (ark of the covenant, the throne of God), not just the priesthood. This abolition of the Bible allowed them to twist and invent doctrine however they wished. I am not Catholic, and the Roman Catholic Church is not the true church. They have openly persecuted believers who reject their heresy, quietly promoted sexual deviancy, and ignored a culture of prostitution in Europe, even absorbed false pagan deities into sainthood in order to win converts. My father-in-law's ancestors were Huguenots who were tortured and murdered by "the Church" in France until they were driven out. I know people who were abused by priests and nuns. Europe is a spiritually dark place with few true believers, and we send many missionaries there today.

So whatever atrocities and lies the Roman Catholic Church continues to perpetuate and cover up, is no surprise to me. At their core, they deny and ignore scripture, attempting to corrupt the true church by destroying the founding principals. The Archbishop of Canterbury is currently in a similar boat. The Anglican Church accepts whatever doctrine they think will make them popular with the world, however counter to the truth it may be. This has led to many Anglican/Episcopal congregations splitting from the Church of England, and joining African and Latin American Bishops, who already split off for the same reasons. [2]

"...[the founders] had a specific meaning on which the wrote those principles. That i do agree on. Where i differ is the fact that you are saying those beliefs should not change, ever. What was morally acceptable 100 years ago will change irregardless of what we want. Morality is subjective and very dependent on how we integrate it into society."

I do not agree with every jot and tiddle of the founding. They were not perfect people, but they all had the same basic Christian based morality, and that is what they based their principals on. If you think there were many among them that whole-heartedly supported slavery, even among those who owned slaves, you are in for a history lesson. I dare you to bring up the 3/5 compromise.

You acknowledge that I was right about your view: That morality is subjective, and only holds as long as the majority agrees with it. What if a very persuasive person stood up and got the ear of the nation, and told them it is morally right to enslave homosexuals and Jews and gypsies and confiscate their property, and most of the nation was swayed to his opinion? Since most people now agree with him, how can you say it is the wrong thing to do? Would you have any moral compunction if you found yourself living among the natives that Amerigo Vespucci encountered? They ate little red meat, except when they went to war, then they ate their enemies, and took no prisoners except to torture.

The perception of morality may change, but right is always right, and wrong is always wrong. If society doesn't think so, they can be persuaded that anything is right.

So is slavery of blacks morally right if a majority agrees with it?

If no, you must abandon your point that morality is subjective. You agree that morals exist that transcend social fads. To win the debate with a "no" answer, you must then prove transcendent morality approves gay marriage.

If yes, you capitulate that slavery of blacks would be OK since the majority believes it to be right. With the abandonment of principals that transcend social fads, no civil right is safe, and the very existence of rights would be in question. You only have them as long as you can convince most people you have them. They are a fabrication. If there are no civil rights, gay marriage certainly can't be a right, because rights don't exist. You lose the debate.


Debate Round No. 3


I will try to keep this debate on topic instead of focusing on a argument for subjective morality. Con did a good job showing the flaw in this belief. Which is why a majority of people can accept that there is a overall sense of right and wrong. He stated that believing this could be considered a majority rule situation, which is and can be true in some regards.

So a more viable question would be, is gay marriage morally correct within "our" society? Remember I stated we integrate and determine our own morality. In some parts of the world slavery may be acceptable, but it is widely accepted as wrong so we as humans can acknowledge the harm it can bring to us. Subjective morality also means we can act good, by hopes of advancing our society and that we do not need a overall sense of right and wrong or a divine being to determine what is moral for us. Saying that would mean we are not capable of being good on our own.

As con stated one man started a revolution because he thought slavery was wrong. We as a society accepted this, and embraced it. I am merely using inductive reasoning in making the assumption skin color is not much different than sexual orientation. If we as a country and as human being can acknowledge that slavery is wrong, we should also be able to infer that being bias because of ones sexual orientation is wrong. Even without objective morality, our society is run with the popular trend wins. That is how we elect a president sadly. However that is not the topic of this debate. The topic is should gay marriage be legal. We have demonstrated as humans, a nation, and as a society that we can embrace change and acknowledge what is wrong. This is just making the next logical step in the process.


From R1, Pro appeals to morality with the words "should" "should not" "right[civil rights]" and "wrong." If the legalization of gay marriage is a moral decision, the determination of what is actually moral is pertinent and necessary. He acknowledges that subjective morality is flawed, but still maintains in the second paragraph that morality is subjective to popular opinion.

"...we do not need a overall sense of right and wrong or a divine being to determine what is moral for us. Saying that would mean we are not capable of being good on our own."

We would not be capable of being good if no one knew what good really was. We need an objective measure. We cannot say "this is a meter long" if the meter is subjective. The phrase would mean nothing, because a meter has no real value.

"We have demonstrated as humans, a nation, and as a society that we can embrace change and acknowledge what is wrong. This is just making the next logical step in the process."

An appeal to objective morality after appealing to subjective morality.

If what is done by popular consent is always right, why would we ever need to acknowledge what IS wrong? What has been, and is going on is always right, or neither right nor wrong. There is no "should," and laws are morally unnecessary. Therefore, nothing needs to be legalized or outlawed.

"If we as a country and as human being can acknowledge that slavery is wrong, we should also be able to infer that being bias because of ones sexual orientation is wrong."

Slavery of blacks was based on a notion of racial superiority. Appearance and ancestry. Bias against sexual orientation is bias against behavior and acted upon desire of a person. They are apples and oranges. If desire and behavior are to be equally protected with race, there can be no logical moral objection to any other behavior that springs from desire. An ill-tempered man is entitled to his rage, maybe even violence. He was born that way, you know, easily riled. It's not slippery slope: When the principals on which your views stand are removed, no logic about morality can stand, and there are no logical steps in any moral process.

My opponent has attempted to bypass my yes or no question from R3.
He appealed to subjective morality (yes) but still insists rights somehow exist, and maintains gay marriage is a right.
But he has also appealed to objective morality (no), that there IS wrong (and therefore right) that society can align itself with, without demonstrating where that determination of objective right and wrong comes from.
Debate Round No. 4


I am sorry you thought I bypassed your question. The answer is not as simple and yes or no and I explained that. Right, wrong, good, and bad is dependant on culture and time. Was slavery wrong when it occurred years ago? As we see it now the answer is yes. If we were back in that time period the answer would have been no. Beliefs can always change, the same can be said for what we perceive as right and wrong. I limited my response because it was getting off topic. You started trying to debate me on objective morality and slavery rather than focusing on the topic of gay marriage. I brought up the point to show that cultures can change the way the believe as we did with slavery, and as we are starting to do with gay marriage. Even drugs are being legalized. If you take a look at our civilization 100 years ago, the principles and ethics are so different it is almost impossible to compare them. Why is this? Morality changed and we learned to shape our beliefs.

This issue at hand is should gay marriage be legalized. However we look at it, whether it being using objective or subjective morality, the question still remains is the same. Is it morally acceptable for them to marry in our society and culture at this point in time. I believe the answer is yes. If jobs were to discriminate against African Americans, they would be sued or sanctioned for violation of state and federal laws. The same can be said if someone where to deny employment based on sexual orientation. We however are doing this with marriage and it as deemed acceptable because it is considered a religious mater. I stated early and stand by marriage was founded with religious intentions but as of now it is regulated by the government, when this happened we have to acknowledge the fact that we are denying people right based on predisposition. In any other circumstance this would be a federal crime.

I will also add gay marriage does or does not negatively affect anyone or anybody. Some may argue that it is a negative example to our children, but so are drugs and alcohol. In that circumstance we are in the process of legalizing one in more states, and mass producing the other. That does give us a viable reason to ban them, nor is it the same issue. That is just an materialistic item, what we are banning is far worse. We are banning the right for someone to be married. We are invading their personal life so much, that we are telling them whom they may and may not spend their life with. We deem in unacceptable and refuse to give them paperwork, and up until recently they could not even receive the same benefits as married couples.

So to please my opponent and focus on what I had stated previously, at his point in time and how we have set our government laws and regulations, legalizing this is a moral necessity. Should we allow religious institutions to own the right to be bias, and force their will on others. We do and are not allowed to do this with any type of job. We should make the most logical step and give them the freedom to at least own a marriage licence.

This nation has went through many years of bias and hard times. We fought years to give people equal rights in regards to their skin color. Yet here we are making the same mistake again. I urge you to consider the consequences of the past and grant everyone the chance to be free regardless of skin color, race, or religion. We as a nation should be working toward humanism, not deepening the divide. I thank my opponent for this debate, and thank anyone who took the time to read all of this. My deepest gratitude.


I see no reason why my opponent would receive negative points for conduct in this debate, he was very cordial.

I have to conclude my opponent and I are currently at an intellectual impass. My guess is he has been brought up with a worldview with subjective morality at it's core, but he has not been exposed to worldviews with objective morality at their core in a way that has forced him to compare his ideas with theirs on a very deep level. This is understandable since his worldview is so prevalent in many parts of this country, and many people don't seem to associate with those of differing opinions.

It is not off topic to argue about the nature of morality in this debate. Whether or not it is right to legalize gay marriage is a moral decision. So if the decision is based on morals, the nature of morals must be understood.

My opponent believes morals shift with time and society's opinion. If then, as my opponent says, slavery was moral while it was popular, were the first unpopular abolitionists immoral since they were in the minority? If abolition became popular despite it's immorality, what can we say about it's supporters? Harriet Beecher Stowe and Frederick Douglas are villains? What about the moment that must have occurred when society was exactly 50/50 split? Was it a non-moral issue, like what flavor of ice cream to buy? Was it in quantum flux (both right and wrong at the same time)?

My opponent appears to not yet grasp the weight of my question, or the basis of my objection to gay marriage. I appeal to objective morality that most of the founders did. There is right and wrong decided by nature's God, that is immutable despite popular opinion and ignorance. He does seem to understand that according to the Bible, homosexuality and a host of other equal sins, are immoral. He even contrarily appeals to some form of objective morality, in saying that society's opinion should be changed on the subject of gay marriage. But how can an appeal to what SHOULD be done be made when he takes the position that whatever society DOES do is right, because it is done by popular consent? There is no SHOULD. All that is done is OK. Any change to popular opinion is wrong.

What rights can be guaranteed under this new subjective morality? Since our old rights were determined by a unchanging factor (Bible), how can my opponent say we even have civil rights if he's determining rights from an unstable factor (public opinion)?

My point stands that with new moral codes come new rights and new restrictions. You are allowed to marry people of the same gender, but what about property rights? Rights against unlawful search? Slander and Libel? Murder? The old morality was pretty clear cut, but this new morality is undefined and uncertain until we wake up to the popular cause of the day. If the people can be swayed a particular way, new freedoms can be added, and old ones taken away with an enthusiastic shout from a podium, or whispered admonition from a grade-school teacher. There are no protections for our civil rights as a whole with subjective morality. They are perpetually uncertain and wax and wane with the frequency and fickleness of a popularity contest.

With the rejection of the old morality, all our current civil rights are in question.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Skynet 5 years ago
It appears more people than I thought are unfamiliar with subjective/objective morality.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Inductivelogic 5 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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Reasons for voting decision: This was an interesting topic on a very difficult debate. Normally I would vote Con on sources due to the fact he provided them, but since he invoked religious sources and where as I do not see this relevant to the roll of legalizing it, I will discredit them. So I am left to award Pro with sources because of him invoking my thoughts of common knowledge Where as pro had good spelling, he did mess up on his grammar a lot, so I award to Grammar to con. The last issue is arguments. I have never heard an argument for subjective morality but I find it intriguing. I believe Con missed the point Pro was trying to make and accidentally avoided it. Pro was directly stating that morals are dependent on popular opinion and explained why he believed that. He says morality is dependent on what particular society knows. I have never even thought to argue this point, but it is very hard to combat because it is stating that everyone can be right depending on what culture teaches them. Arguments
Vote Placed by Shadowguynick 5 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: This was a good argument, but con delved into religion too much. If con wanted to use religion he would have to prove that the christian god is correct, and that the bible is correct. He did not really go into this. The only reason i will give a tie on convincing arguments is because Con brought up one good point, and that was that if society had morals based on popularity, and if we don't believe gay marriage is popular yet, then it is not moral. I believe it was unfair to throw it out at the end of the debate, but since no rule was made against it I will have to agree with it.