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

Should same-sex marriage get banned?

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Sorrentopl2 has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/6/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 693 times Debate No: 102918
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




Personally I think that same-sex marriage should get banned, because a marriage should be between a man and a woman, and it offends God. Since the beginning of our civilisation a marriage has been between a male and a female. Same-sex marriage also infect normal people, and it causes low birth rate. Personally I'm against same-sex marriage. Leave your opinion, but keep a good tone.


How will society ever evolve if we're always following by old traditions, or practicing something that is more common than another? The notion that banning same-sex marriage simply because an old book said so, is absurd. Your arguments are inferring that same-sex marriage should be banned because it, "offends God" and there is no way to procreate between same sexes. Where is the inclusion of the many people that don't want to have children, or can't have children? What if these same people were attracted to the same gender?

How is loving someone of the opposite sex, different to loving someone of the same sex? These two 'spectrums' both fall under the subject of love.

There is no evidence that supports your argument that marriage has only been performed with a male and a woman since the beginning of our civilisation. To prove your point wrong, homosexuality has been "around" for thousands of thousands of years, not to mention the Greek poet, Sappho.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by John_C_1812 2 years ago
Keeping this short. Same sex Marriage is illegal.

Pro you are not representing an imperial GOD. Marriage is the private likelihood between a man and woman, anything else is a form of polarizing. A private Contract that can be impartial is not a burden to be placed on witness by member of the public. Common defense by state of the Union can be title Binivir meaning any two men, a contract for two woman UnosMulier.

A law is broken by act of crime in civil court when Counsel used the judicial separation as weapon of force on a public witness, having them commit perjury. The perjury starts with plagiarizing on an official document of record. Using a hostility aggression upon a witness who may not understand United States Constitution, or by cost cannot pay for representation in civil court is an act unfitting non-biased justice, they are constitutional wrong as hate is not justification to fabricate perjury as justice.

No need for sexual description defining needed ever had been made public by all precedent.

Can it be proved that Binivir is not a contract that can be witnessed between two men?

Can it be proved that Unosmulier is not a contract that can be witnessed between two women?
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

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