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


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  
Debate Round Forfeited
QueenMalfoy42 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: 8/14/2017 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 464 times Debate No: 103535
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




Same sex should be legalized in all countries


Now this seems like an incredible challenge...and I can't shy away from these type of "one-sided debates"

I Accept: and as Con I challenge the (topic) "Same sex should be legalized in all countries."

I will use my R1 as Acceptance and also a request to Pro for clarity.

Do you mean "same sex marriage"?

(Important Note) I assure you - I am going to hit you from angles you won't expect. I am far from a bigot and my sister is openly gay. I hope you are ready because I am ready to 'Debate' !!!!
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
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by BMyers 3 years ago
For that argument I would reply with "you cannot legislate morality"

(and please don't look at me as defending this awful position on this topic/concept and understand why I'm doing this - if you would like, you can continue with points and I will exercise on coming up with defense statements)
Posted by smurfy101 3 years ago
Pro can argue that "should" is a moral stance, not a practical one.
Posted by BMyers 3 years ago
The Con has all the leverage in this Debate. How are you possibly going to enforce a global policy that contradicts "moral" (in quotes for a reason) structures of 2nd world cultures and below?

We can't even get food to the people of Africa, how are we going to enforce civil liberties?(especially 'modern taboo' aspects of the Western culture)

The heart is in the right place, but legalizing same sex marriage is (sadly...) a "first world problem."

Too many other places in the world aren't even at the level of forbidding child labor...there is zero way possible this could be (in the world today)

I'll also add this - why are we still supporting "marriage" as an institution? That is a religious tradition - and a very outdated one. If you are so dependent on 'social recognition' then you are "gay for the wrong reasons."

If you are fighting for "free love" then you should already know that you don't have to get married to be in love and spend your life with someone.

The problem exists with state-sponsored marriages. Your blend of "church and state" is right there. In it's nature it is designed disharmonic. If you are adamant on the religious community to recognize you and your partner as "one" then you can keep on with this.

In closing...please, keep it realistic - your topic should be "same sex marriage should be legal in all STATES"

...not "countries"

We are going to follow the laws of OUR land - and so are the other places in the world (the laws of THEIR land) The language of this topic inherently destroys Pro (thus a "semantics debate" and an extension of "anti-policing the world" plus an awareness that the Western culture is not wanted everywhere in the world (or can be supported, for that matter)
Posted by smurfy101 3 years ago
Only @Purushadasa would disagree, and the con argument really doesn't have a leg to stand on.
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.