The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
0 Points

Same-sex marriage should be legal

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/13/2017 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 938 times Debate No: 103186
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




I believe that same-sex marriage should be legal.
Rules :
1. Round 1 is acceptance
2.No new arguments in round 3
3.No forfeits


Agreed, look forward to debating
Just as a request, can we agree upon no logical fallacies?
Debate Round No. 1


I accept your request on no logical fallacies.

1. Equality
Our world does not wish to discriminate against race, religion or ethnicity. And saying that gay marriage shouldn't be legal is discrimination. Gay couples should be able to marry if they want and other people shouldn't interfere with people's life options if gay couples want to make their decision on their own.

2.Freedom of choice
If two people want to get married to each other then let them. Does it really make a difference to your life if gay people are allowed to get married? People should be allowed to marry another people as long as both of them want regardless of their race, religion, ethnicity, sex or gender.

3.It's working out in other countries
Gay marriage is working out in many states of America and in a lot of EU countries so why wouldn't it work out in the rest of the world.

More children will be succesfully adopted there are gay marriages.


Same-sex marriage goes against the traditional principles of what marriage is. In Western cultures, marriage is the union between a MAN and a WOMAN, ordained by God for a lifelong relationship. For this reason, marriage is also referred to as a "Holy Matrimony." Regardless of a person's belief, this is at the core of what marriage means. In the argument for same-sex marriage, this idea is completely ignored. Proponents' main concerns are the civil rights of homosexual couples. If this is the case, then the argument should not be if homosexuals should be allowed to "marry," but if the same civil rights should be given to homosexual couples. The simple answer is: yes, they should have all the same rights as any married couple but not the Christian title of husband and wife.
Opponents hang on the words, "Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege." Proponents of gay marriage are deeply offended by this, and this seems to fuel their passion to fight for gay marriage. However, in this case, both arguments are erroneous. Marriage is neither a right nor a privilege. The historical definition of marriage is simply a promise to God and the husband or wife, that one will forever remain faithful and committed. From this simple idea, marriage has become a tradition. Non-believers also partake in this ceremony to profess their devotion to each other. So, when a woman in San Diego married her dog, Christians found this to be degrading. To believers, this was not a "true marriage", but defamation. Essentially, while gay rights should be established, it shouldn't be labeled as marriage.
I will now move on to rebuttals
Your first argument is a fallacy: Begging the question. I will refute it, however, they will be discarded as it's fallacious
1. You stated that "Our world does not wish to discriminate against race, religion or ethnicity", this is inaccurate.
Since there is a character limit I will just post a link
I will rebuttal your 2nd argument in round 3 due to a character limit
3. Just because other countries or states allow for gay marriage simply does not mean that other countries or state should as well.
Take this statement
'Other countries legalized gay marriage, we should too.'
Now take this statement
'Other countries disband guns, we should too'
These statements are equally true. In each case, there is no conflict between doing what others do and the following, but that does not call for gay marriage to be legalized. The fact that other countries have specific laws, ie that gay marriage is allowed in other countries doesn't call for it to be legalized in others.
4. There is no guarantee that allowing gay marriage will lead to children being successfully adopted in other countries. In other countries. Simply put, marriage is not necessary for children to be adopted, as single people could adopt. Your argument is, therefore, a false assumption.
Debate Round No. 2


Just because the tradition of marriage is between a man and a woman doesn't mean it still needs to be that way. It used to be a tradition that men work while women do the housework and look after the children and that's not followed today. There was also a law that women couldn't work in the army even if they were strong as the men in the army and that law is not followed today. Just because something is a tradition doesn't mean we should keep it. A lot of things go against the traditional principle of what something is and how it should be done. We might have done it in the past but that doesn't mean we should do it now. Yes, the historical definition of a marriage was a promise to God and the husband and the wife but we aren't living in the past we are living in the present. Just because it is the historical definition doesn't mean it has to be the modern one. Does it affect you if gays are married or not? No, it really doesn't.

Now on to rebutting your rebuttals

1. Those are not your arguments you could have posted a link to google docs.

2. I didn't say "other countries legalised gay marriage, we should too"
I said "other countries legalised it and it's working well there so there is a good chance that it will work in our country too"

3. A lot of adopting agencies don't let gay couples adopt but if they do get married that means they have the same status as straight people who have married so the adopting agencies will have to let gays adopt because of the pressure.


1. It seems you have misunderstood my argument, thus turning your argument into a strawman. To correct you, I simply stated that gay rights should be established but it shouldn't be labeled as marriage as it serves as a vow to God in tradition. Adding on to this, Christianity is against homosexuality, and being that marriage originated from Christianity, many religious believers may find this to be defamation. Also, allowing gay marriage to be legalized would affect the traditional definition of marriage, something that we already established. It would, therefore, impact the lives of many Christians.
2. These links were not arguments, rather, they served as bible verses or the beliefs of Islam to prove your faulty belief that the world wants equality. Simply put, they served my original statement, " You stated that "Our world does not wish to discriminate against race, religion or ethnicity", this is inaccurate." I even concluded that I would post links instead of establishing them as evidence, something that intuition would suggest. Rather then using google docs, which if I partook in would break the rules, I included links for you to connect the steps.
I will not elaborate as that would be a breach of the established rules.
3. I didn't say "other countries legalized gay marriage, we should too"
I said "other countries legalized it and it's working well there so there is a good chance that it will work in our country too"
My opponent stated the two following statements as dissimilar, both of which I find are similar enough for them to serve as substitute enough for each other. His statement serves no difference, as they are both fallacious: Appeal to authority.
4. Unfortunately, his rebuttal is self-defeating as it serves no real purpose. Rather, he used an argument much like this
Premise: A lot of adopting agencies don't let gay people adopt
Premise: they did then they would be given the same status as straight people who have married
Premise: They were given that same status
Premise: Adopting agencies were forced to let gays adopt due to pressure
Conclusion: Gay marriage will rise adoption rates
From this, we can conclude that yes, adopting agencies do allow for gay people to adopt, as he even stated it. We can thus come to the conclusion that his argument is self-defeating.
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by John_C_1812 3 years ago
Keep in mind that Gay and Lesbian are both accusations which can be disputed in civil court but are not required to be disputed in this way due to the fact it is not just a personal choice. So legally a Gay man and Lesbian woman can be married not only to each other, but to woman and men who have not been accused of being gay or lesbian.
Posted by John_C_1812 3 years ago
No it is not legal, Discrimination law does not create instant immunities to other law. it can be proved illegal anywhere. The argument is that it is discrimination to religiously object and not Constitutional to this public test to hold office.

So first lets start with objection on a legal cause. People are asked to lie on an official document and incriminate the United States Constitution based on that lie. Second state the cause for grievance which creates the objection is openly plagiarizing marriage to fabricate a crime from legislation.

A witness can not be told they must, by law incriminate the Constitutional separation. Binivir and UnosMulier are impartial witness accounts of private contracts that could have always been independent between both a two men, and two woman. The accounts by word express nothing but a witness account of what can be obviously seen in a private contract.

So no FanboyMctroll it is not already legal it never was. It most likely never will due to the fact it is perjury that keeps the plagiarism illegal. Sorry.
Posted by FanboyMctroll 3 years ago
It already is in most states and Canada
No votes have been placed for this debate.

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