The Instigator
Pro (for)
3 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
10 Points

Same-Sex Marriage

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/27/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 829 times Debate No: 87338
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)




I think same-sex marriage should be legal because, in reality, I don't see how two dudes or girls having a worthless ceremony goes against a Christian's beliefs. Divorce is already legal, but no Conservative argues against it, even though it's a COMPLETE sin that's legal.


I'm glad my opponent is very opinionated as this will prove to be an exciting debate. I will be courteous as long as my opponent is, too.

I will focus on the religious and legislative aspects of this issue. I will argue why same-sex marriage is wrong and why it shouldn't be legal.

If either side's ideas involves a violation in human morality or human rights, I would ask that the other side win automatically.

That being said, best of luck to my opponent.

TrumpetTrain has presented a two-part argument. 1. There is nothing offensive to Christianity about two people of the same gender having a "worthless ceremony". And then, 2. Conservatives have no problem with other sins being legal (like divorce).

By his second point he has already given away that he agrees that Christians believe gay marriage is a sin. While it's true that gay marriage is a sin and that many Conservatives believe it should be outlawed solely because of that, I will not be arguing that way.

Let me get some things straight. Gay marriage is a sin. But it also is much more than a sin between two people and THAT is why it should be outlawed. The Bible is clear that people are allowed to make their own decisions even if they have consequences. Paul, when he talks about sexual immorality in 1 Corinthians 6:12 says, "'I have the right to do anything,' you say-- but not everything is beneficial." Divorce, like my opponent said, is legal and conservatives are OK with it because they themselves know not to divorce their spouses.

But what makes gay marriage legalization different? The answer to this question is how I will respond to my opponent's first point. My point is:

1. Gay marriage invokes tolerance of other people.

Let's say a gay couple is getting married. They want to buy flowers from a certain flower shop. But the man who owns the flower shop doesn't support gay marriage. He doesn't want to supply them with flowers because it goes against his own, personal beliefs that he is entitled to. However, BY LAW this flower shop owner cannot turn them away. This is the difference between same-sex marriage and divorce. Other people are being obligated to support gay people against their beliefs.

I have evidence for all my arguments available upon the affirmative's request.
Debate Round No. 1


Okay, you made a smart argument that I understand, but here's the truth: I'm sick of Christian Cherry-Pickers. Stop choosing which bible verses to follow and which to ignore. And basically, with your flower shop example, let's say MY religion says heterosexuality is wrong. Then I can not let you get flowers from my shop for marrying a woman. The truth is, Christians divorce ALL THE TIME. Kim Davis was on like, her 4th husband when she wouldn't let he homosexuals have their marriage license. I'm sick of the cherry-picking. Now, also, at a flower shop, if that guy is being forced to give a gay couple their flowers, here's a crazy idea:
With this logic, an abortion doctor can deny EVERY abortion that comes his way because, "The Bible says it's wrong."
If your going to be THAT ENTITLED to our opinion, that your going to deny people their service because your beliefs about some random thing written 3,500 years ago in a book is so important, quit your job, and find a job where you DON'T have to, "violate," your beliefs.


"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the
consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,
it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it"
--Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence.

Already the Affirmative has proposed ideas contrary to that of our Founders' and in violation to basic human rights. To start off, I will organize the arguments my opponent made and then respond to all of them in order. I will conclude with some questions.

Here are the arguments my opponent presented:
1. Christians cherry-pick only the verses out of the Bible that suit them. (Probably in response to the verse I used).
2. If we let religion dictate, any person can come up with any religion they like and say there can't be laws opposing it.
3. If a person's beliefs are violated, that person should change their job.

Let's talk about the first point, that Christians cherry-pick verses. I agree that some other people who call themselves Christians like to choose only some verses out of the Bible, but not me. It just so happens that I used the verse in perfect context and in keeping with my point about Christian beliefs. See for yourself that I did not just "cherry-pick".
I challenge my opponent to find any verses that I have overlooked.

On to the second point, that of the dangers of religion. This is kind of a no-brainer. According to LifeSiteNews, 61% of Americans do not want gay marriage.
I challenge my opponent to come up with any statistics on how many people don't support heterosexual marriage. So far, TrumpetTrain, in the real world, such a religion does not exist.

The last point the affirmative made is that if the flower shop owner felt his beliefs were violated, then he should quit his job. Forcing a person to either conform to things opposing their beliefs or quit their own job violates the Constitution as can be seen in Amendment 5 and the Declaration of Independence! This man owns a flower shop! You can't force anyone to give up their beliefs or their livelihood. That is basic human rights. No person should have to live avoiding all situations where their beliefs will be offended. Anyway, 83% of all people are Christians and it's not just flower shops where these new laws are infringing on their beliefs.

Again, I have sources supporting all of my arguments.

Finally, I have a few questions for TrumpetTrain, the first of which being:

Do you believe humans are entitled to certain unalienable rights, as defined by The Declaration of Independence?

Do you have opinions? (haha but we already know the answer to this one)

Do you want to be free to defend your opinions?

Do you agree that gay marriage invokes the tolerance of other people?

Would you be happy about giving up your job or the thing you loved to do most because of a government law standard?
Debate Round No. 2


Okay, so such a religion does not exist, where heterosexuality is opposed. BUT, in the Hindu religion, Homosexuality is supported. Heterosexuality is supported. Basically, both are seen as normal, so if a Homosexual were Hindu, and they were to go to a flower shop, then being denied their service is against THEIR religion. Also, your argument about how 61% of Americans oppose same sex marriage is obviously not valid, because according to THIS WEBSITE, DEBATE.ORG, only 27% of Users Oppose it, and their are many websites that say that homosexuality is supported by the majority of the population,
, and on the link I just listed, as of 2015, 55% of Americans support gay marriage rights.


My opponent has dropped my point about cherry-picking verses out of the Bible by not responding to me so, technically I would win on this point. He responded to my second and third points. Also, he answered none of my questions which means he agrees with me as far as those points go. Let's talk about his statistic responses first.

I used a (valid) source that said 61% of Americans are Christians. TrumpetTrain countered that using
which says that 55% of Americans support gay rights. The thing to be noted about his source is that it does not mention the number of people polled, it may have been far less than the number of people polled in my source (800). Also this website is not a reliable statistic for how many people support gay marriage/rights. But my point was NOT that since the majority opposed gay rights, they should be outlawed. On the contrary, I was saying that there are still MANY people, a good percent of the population, whose rights and beliefs are offended by legalization of gay marriage. Even if I had used his sources, my point still would have been made.

As far as the Hindu argument goes, there is nothing wrong with them being denied their service because the flower shop owner has opposing beliefs. That is not unconstitutional in the least. What is unconstitutional is the flower shop owner not having the freedom deny them. Judges, this one point is enough to warrant a negative vote. All unconstitutional standards ought to be outlawed.

TrumpetTrain, at this point you cannot introduce any new arguments.

You may still respond to my questions.
Debate Round No. 3


Okay, I'll answer the questions if you stop whining:
Would you be happy about giving up your job or the thing you loved to do most because of a government law standard?

This question is invalid because it's a choice. A good Christian wouldn't put their job before God, because the truth is, if they DID love God, then they would quit their job, as their job is forcing them to sin. Simple as that. If you really weren't a sinner, you wouldn't put your job before god.

Do you want to be free to defend your opinions?

Yes. I do. And a good Christian would simply give a gay couple flowers, but say, "You know, you're sinning, and that's terrible." Also, if a Republican Conservative Against Gay Marriage walked into a flower shop, and I owned it, I wouldn't deny him. I would realize that people have different opinions, and though I disagree with those opinions, I still have to do my flipping job, and if I don't want to do 5% of the stuff in my job, I quit.

Do you believe humans are entitled to certain unalienable rights, as defined by The Declaration of Independence?

Well, a lot of rights have been taken away since 1776, like the right to own slaves, so technically, yes.

Do you Have Opinions?

Yes, I do. And if a Republican were to walk into a flower shop that I owned, I wouldn't deny them, because my opinions are my opinions, and though I disagree with people, I actually have this crazy thing called, "tolerance."

Do you agree that gay marriage invokes the tolerance of other people?

Yes. People need tolerance.


The first and most important thing I would like to mention is that the Affirmative has dropped all arguments in the round. This means that I would win by default. No point the Affirmative has made is still standing. The only thing TrumptTrain did is answer my questions. I will respond to each one.

1. In the dilemma I presented, TrumpetTrain claimed that the Christian should quit his job if he really believed in God. However, the job and the belief in God don't have to conflict. My point is: It's wrong for the government to impose this new law. The person should not have to give up their job and the law is at fault. TrumpetTrain avoided my point so it still supports the negative.

2. In this question also the Affirmative avoided my point and attempted to twist it around to his side. I've already made my argument against this but I will say again: legalizing gay marriage prohibits many people from defending their own opinions. Most people have opinions and all should be legally permitted to defend them. His example is weak and I certainly hope TrumpetTrain isn't so stubborn that he wouldn't take conservatives as customers! Also, if you own a store, you can't just quit... it's your livelihood. No one should be forced to quit. This point flows to the Negative side as well.

3. Yes, judges, it is true that all humans have certain unalienable rights. These rights SHOULD BE upheld. Owning slaves has changed but the freedom to defend one's own beliefs has not. The Affirmative made no point here.

4. Opinions are important and we all should be able to defend them without the fear of losing our jobs. Again, this point flows to the Negative.

5. Irrational tolerance, as I've said this entire round, is a violation of human rights. Consequently, the Affirmative did not make any point here so this last point flows Negative.

In conclusion, every argument made in this round supports the Negative side. The Affirmative has made arguments that advocate the violation of human rights. TrumpetTrain has not proved his point or supported his side with any substantial arguments. Please use discretion when voting and I strongly urge a Negative decision.

It's been a pleasure debating, TrumpetTrain.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by OpenSesame 2 years ago
To have a debate, you need to use facts mate. You cant prove religion, thats why its called a religion. It can be against your faith and congrats to you for being ignorant, but it should not affect if its illegal or not.
Posted by whiteflame 2 years ago
>Reported vote: Cooldudebro// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: Personally, I'm not Christian. However, I study the Bible and remember this verse: "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." Leviticus 18:22 Conduct goes to Con for Pro saying "whining" S/G goes to Con for Pro's improper use of words "Like" Sources go to Con as well for using more reliable sources. Overall, Con could've argued a lot better in this debate. Just to it point out, he neglected to bring up the economic side to this debate. Pro's arguments seemed somewhat lazy and not well thought out. Con had clear arguments that were on point and convinced me his arguments were sound and valid. Pro naturally had the B.O.P. but failed to meet it by any means. Therefore, I give all seven points to Pro.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Conduct requires more than having one side using the word "whining". Characterizing one side's points as whining is not a clear conduct violation. (2) Improperly using the word "like" is not a basis for awarding S&G. The argument has to be difficult to understand as a result of S&G issues in order to award this point. (3) Sources require a reason, and all this RFD does is restate the decision to award sources without explanation. (4) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter has to directly assess arguments actually made in the debate, and not merely state how one side could have argued better or focus on generalized reasons why the voter finds a given side at fault, particularly not when those reasons aren't directly stated in the debate. Giving feedback on what could have been said is fine, but it looks like that factored into the decision, which it should not.
Posted by Cooldudebro 2 years ago
@funnyface318 Gay marriage doesn't really have any good arguments besides morality which is quite relative. Normally, if both sides only argue about morality, the person for gay marriage wins. This surprised me. Con should be more careful next time he debates this topic. He should look up the economic costs and statistics about same-sex couples. It was a fun debate to read.
Posted by funnyface318 2 years ago
I agreed with the con after the debate because Alain Ginger had an argument that really convinced me over the argument of the pro side. you both have good arguments, but I feel that Trumpet-Train did not have any evidence or support of the claims he stated. When he did have evidence or support, the sites weren't very credible; like this one. These are a few of the many reasons for my voting decision.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by SocialDemocrat 2 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:33 
Reasons for voting decision: I think that Trumpet Train was less clear about what his points were so conduct to con. Con also elaborates on his sources more so sources to him. However I feel con failed to address homosexual marriage and why it is wrong specifically as much as the rights of business owners, so I feel pro had more convincing arguments.
Vote Placed by CJames 2 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: While I agree in premise with Pro, he failed to argue. Never addressing con's points and instead attempting to dance around them. In addition, Con better formatted his arguments, and given the limited number of sources used, actually posted at least a single source supporting his side. While I disagree with Con, I have to give him the debate.