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

Should Gay Marriage Be Legal?

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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/9/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 696 times Debate No: 75053
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (2)




The main thing here is: NO RELIGIOUS INFLUENCE. Keep in mind that the US is a secular state, which should have no religious influence. I want some actual arguments.

The main argument here is religion. Although we have religious freedom it does not mean we can openly oppress people because of it. If an ISIS member became a citizen, just because of his religious freedom could they bomb a building?
Homosexuality is natural. It occurs in nature. Whether your sense of morality conflicts with it, it doesn't change the minds of those whose sexual orientation stands and cannot change.


Pro begins stating that we cannot oppress people due to religion and yet the religious evade estate taxes legally (meaning religious buildings),[1] The point is, religion is recognized by law and things are done in favor of the religious at times. this point is therefore invalid.

Pro states 'if an ISIS member became a citizen could they bomb a building'. This is firstly ignorant as he is confusing ISIS and Al-Qaeda, two very different organizations.[2] Both support militant Sharia Law but that's just about where the similarities end. ISIS is far more hierarchical and tight-knit than the 'every man for himself' style of Al-Qaeda's terrorism (often involving suicide bombers). ISIS is also less chivalrous so to speak and will have its women fighting on the front line whereas Al-Qaeda only allows males to engage in the front line of terrorism. ISIS hasn't bombed USA ever and shouldn't be falsely accused of doing so.

On a separate note, bombing a building and outlawing gay marriage are two very different matters. One is done by legal means and the other isn't, for starters.

Homosexuality is arguably natural for some. So is having the urge to murder[2] and rape[3][4]. In fact every single crime is based on preventing something that the criminal has naturally ended up wanting to do. What makes homosexuality being natural have to do with its legitimacy?

The last point Pro brought up is somewhat correct. It is analogous to how you can never stop a psychopath wanting to do what they feel the urge to do; you can only punish them for acting on that urge.

Debate Round No. 1


Religion is recognized by the government. I do understand that.
But, the only reason we outlaw bestiality and pedophilia is not because it's in the bible. We outlawed it because of it's immorality. An animal cannot consent. That would be absurd. With pedophilia, a young boy does not understand the implications of sex.
My understanding of morality for sex is two consenting adults. The two give consent, and understand the implications. I don't understand why that would be considered immoral aside from what major religions have to say.
I do not understand you analogy at the end. We're not talking about whether gay people should be allowed to do as they please. We're talking about marriage. If two gay people have an urge, they can do whatever they want in the privacy of their own home. There should be no punishment for one's sexual orientation. It does not cause harm, while a psychopath can and most of the time does.
How in any way does two people consenting cause harm? I don't understand the point you're trying to make. I was talking about conversional therapies, how they did not work because sexual orientation cannot change.
May I also say that your second source is a conservatively biased news network? I mean come on, they've had a "gay" person come on to tell everyone that she hated the gay community, just so people could eat it up.



Pro's source and argument have nothing, or very little, to do with this debate.

This is the discussion of gay marriage alone. Not gay sex and definitely not Fox News (their source was an attack on it).

Gays are entitled to have sex with one another and can even get a civil union if they so please but marriage is something that the state recognizes as a religious institution. Non-religious marriage does exist but the issue is that when people say 'legalizing gay marriage' they usually mean removing the right of a church or mosque to decline you on grounds of homosexuality. The church or mosque exist to uphold a religion and are being forced to not uphold it; this infringes their rights.

Aside from the religious aspect, gay marriage is a poor thing for society as a whole. It will decrease the population as people do not feel it is their duty to marry someone of the opposite gender and have children (and USA is already seeing a decline in its population growth and soon will have a shrinking population[1]). While in vitro fertilization exists, most gay couples adopt if they happen to want children. This is fine and I have no issue with it but to allow them to have a status as significant as marriage is to say that the government equally would wish everyone were gay as everyone were straight and this creates a huge issue if USA wants its population to keep growing at a steady rate or be maintained at a certain amount.

I have no idea where pedophilia or bestiality came into this debate but I never brought either up. The issue here is not consent, it is morality and population control being undermined by a government who would legislate something that forces religious institutions to break their moral code and encourage the population to decline.

Debate Round No. 2


PhilTheLawyer forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by CookieMonster9 3 years ago

Yea your right. Wow did Con end up bringing that up because if I were Con I would have said something.
Posted by Edisntson 3 years ago
I don't think that Gay Marriage has anything to do with Religious freedom, the entire premise of Marriage is merely because its considered socially acceptable, marriage has long since been considered a strictly religious practice.

I absolutely think that Gay Marriage should be legal, if it doesn't impact you it doesn't matter and you shouldn't try to infringe upon the rights of other people. Simple as that, there's no argument to it because most Americans will argue that they don't want their rights infringed upon but you're infringing upon some of the most basic human rights by not allowing Gay Marriage.

I know a lot of Gay Couples, you can't even tell they are together in public 90% of the time because they don't hold hands or anything like that BECAUSE they understand that it makes people feel uncomfortable.
Posted by BearWithMe 3 years ago
Well legality=/=morality. You say their analogies are unfair yet yours are pretty out their too Con. Homosexuality is no comparable to murder or rape etc. because it is not immoral. I feel like this has strayed quite a bit from the topic "Should Gay Marriage be Legal." Pro is not arguing legality, that's why they're questioning if it should be legal, so instead they are arguing ethics.
Posted by Armoredparadiddle 3 years ago
It's really hard to debate your first argument. You ask us not to debate using religion but the first and only argument you've made so far is based entirely on religious freedom.
Posted by TBSmothers 3 years ago
yep you read it right varrack, Also I would like to point out that you can't compare someone telling about their religion with an ISIS member blowing up a building. Also ISIS isn't a religious group.
Posted by Varrack 3 years ago
"The main thing here is: NO RELIGIOUS INFLUENCE.

The main argument here is religion."

Did I just read that right?
Posted by PhilTheLawyer 3 years ago
@Varrack They aren't. Even though US is secular, people STILL argue religious points. I wanted to clarify why it's flawed.
Posted by Varrack 3 years ago
Do you realize how extremely contradicting those two paragraphs are?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff a round
Vote Placed by CookieMonster9 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Con got argument points because in Round 1 Pro says that this debate is not on religion and his first argument says quote " The main argument here is religion." If the main argument here is religion then why did you say that there are no religious influence. Con got argument points because Pro broke his own rule and Con didn't. I wouldn't care if all Con talked about was soda, if he didn't talk about religion I would give him the points. Con got source points because he had 5 sources when Con only had 1. Con got conduct points because Pro forfeited.