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

There is Nothing Wrong with Same-Sex 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: 3/23/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 764 times Debate No: 72224
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)




The United States is a country that was built on civil rights, liberties, and the pursuit of happiness. There is nothing wrong with same-sex marriage. People that claim it defies the word of God are entitled to that opinion, but also need to realize that the word of God does not mean anything in this country. This country was founded on the basis of freedom of religion. I personally think same-sex marriage should not even be a political topic. Marriage is a personal freedom that should not be restricted.


First of all, I would like to thank the instigator and the Lord for giving me an opportunity to discuss this topic.

This country was founded on freedom of religion. However, the founders did not anticipate this country to become this degenerate. As John Adams said, "The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God. Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company: I mean hell." All of founding fathers were Christians. They gave people freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

However, this is in the distant past, and the reality is that the United States lost its morals. Living in the 21st century, my arguments will not focus on the first paragraph, but on the following arguments.

Why does government ban drugs?
Governments ban drugs because they are harmful to health. Government is responsible for enforcing some regulation that limits individual's freedom. Would you say that freedom to use methamphetamine or LSD must be guaranteed? I hope not. This is analogous to the homosexual issue. Despite common belief, homosexuality is harmful to one's health. Homosexuality increases chance of falling into depression and is negatively associated with overall sexual health, psychosexual maturation, comfort with sexual orientation, and peer socialization. Also, they have increased chance of STD infection.

There are much more arguments that I can and will make. I will save those for later rounds. Thank you once again for providing an opportunity to discuss this sensitive topic in such civilized manner. I am eagerly anticipating your response.

Debate Round No. 1


There is nothing wrong with same-sex marriage.


To follow up on my previous argument, I will present my second argument. Whether homosexuality is psychological disorder or not is debated, but I believe that I have established my reasons for my believing that homosexuality is detrimental to health. If being homosexual is harmful, government should restrict it. but how? Aren't people born with homosexuality?

With the discovery of Xq28 gene in X chromosome some scientists thought that perhaps people are born gay. Xq28 gene is a gene in one's DNA, and it has been studied to be more frequently appearing in homosexual people. So, are people born homosexual?

Well, there has also been allegations about existence of "alcoholic genes" and "warrior genes", which supposedly controls alcoholism and aggression. As you can tell, they don't make sense.

Xq28 is essentially the same. Scientists may or may not have discovered a new gene that increases the chance of being homosexual. However, most scientists agree that behavior is controlled mostly by environment, not genetics. Even if the person has Xq28 gene, if that person was raised in anti-homosexual family, that person will most likely not develop homosexuality. Homosexuality is much like tobacco addiction; one can choose to not be homosexual.

If homosexuality is a life choice affected by one's environment, why shouldn't government restrict it to protect the health of the people? Not acknowledging homosexuality as a legitimate relationship will discourage the environment that raises more homosexuals. So why should government sit by and let it all happen?

The point I just made is a common misconception. I do have more arguments, which I will present in later rounds. I am looking forward to responding to your arguments.
Debate Round No. 2


I apologize for my lacking argument in the second round, as I said, I'm new here. The first point I want to address (or should I say, not address) is the science behind homosexuality. For the sake of this particular argument, I do not care about where homosexuality stems from. What I do care about is what I mentioned in my first argument. Whether a person is born gay or turned gay by choice, environmental influences, etc., this is the United States. This is a free country. This country acknowledges people of all sorts. We are the largest cultural smelting pot in the world. My main frustration with the restriction of same-sex marriage is simply the oppression of freedom.

This leads me into the 'health of the people'. How on Earth does homosexuality harm the health of others? Please, please do a better job of explaining this to me, as I'm very curious. Being homosexual or marrying someone of the same sex does not effect the health of a single soul. Same-sex marriage is a privilege of living in the greatest country on the planet. America is revered for personal freedom, and marriage regulation is transforming this great country. This should not even be a political issue, and in my opinion, this should not be an issue in any sense. Let people do what they want, so long as they don't cause harm to others. Homosexuals cause no harm to others.


My apologies for not posting the links for my second round. Here are the links.

Now as for my third round:

As you have not provided any counterarguments for my previous argument, which stated that people are not born gay, I will assume that you have little issue with that element of my debate. As the maxim goes, "Qui tacet consentit."

I would like to respond to your request in round 3, where you asked me to clarify how homosexuality harms health. If you would look into my links in round 1, those informative and unbiased sources provide the answers you need. However, I understand that few people will want to spend time reading such scholarly articles, I will summarize them for you.

As you know, most homosexuals are not monogamous. Monogamous relationship is often the norm among heterosexual partners, whereas homosexual partners often have multiple partners throughout their life. This increases their chance of being exposed to STD.

Homosexuality also affects mental health. Sexual health, such as psychosexual maturation or comfort with sexual orientation, is one of the few mental problems homosexuals face.

Americans are granted freedom. But if the U.S. government allows all sorts of harmful things to be used, will the government be praised for allowing freedom, or be condemned for exposing and encouraging its citizens to harmful practices? Most likely, the former scenario will occur. Homosexuality has been proven to be harmful to health, not to mention that it violates the laws of biology. This is a different matter from personal freedom; this concerns the government's responsibility to protect its citizens.

Thank you once again for offering such an excellent opportunity for me to debate this topic. I am truly delighted to be able to debate without uncivilized sentiments. With that I would like to conclude this debate.

Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by LoveAndDebate 3 years ago
Hi Jeong_Donghyun
I wouldn't mind having a debate with you on this, I think I have some good counters if you're interested.
Posted by deathstrokeisbrett 3 years ago
i don't think that same-sex marriage is fine.
why do it, what good does it bring?
if there is a child being looked after by homosexuals they will be excluded from many things.
Posted by Excalibur 3 years ago
Your second round argument lacks. Try harder in the third round.
Posted by HanSolo 3 years ago
Sorry about that... I'm new here. Lol
Posted by PickUp_Artist 3 years ago
I would accept this but 24 hours to respond is not enough for me.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by niltiac 3 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: I agree with the standpoint of Pro, but con had much better arguements.
Vote Placed by Gabe1e 3 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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Con had more sources used, that is obvious. Grammar is a tie. However, conduct to Con because for one round, Pro had only one sentence, and it was a widely opinionated sentence. Arguments overall to Con because Pro barely made an effort to rebut any of Con's arguments, and Con stated facts of how it is wrong, while Pro said it was just widely oppressed, which does not tell us that same-sex marriage is not wrong. Con overall proved that same-sex marriage can be harmful.