Question: Should gay marriage be legal?

Title: gay marriage Content: gay marriage should be legal

Title: Homosexual marriage should be legal Content: i accept it.

Title: Gay Marriage Should Be Legal Content: I accept.

Title: Gay Marriage Ought to be Legalized Content: ^^

Title: Gay marriage should be legal Content: I win

Title: Should Gay Marriage Be Legal Content: Should Gay Marriage be allowed

Title: Gay marriage should be illegal Content: Yield

Title: Gay Marriage Content: Gay marriage should be legal.

Title: should gay marriage be legal Content: I rest my case

Title: homosexual marriages should be legalised!!! Content: yes. in my opinion it should be legalised bcoz everyone have right to live there life according to them n the society don't have any right to interfere in that. it's there personal matter that whom they prefer. if they like the person of same sex n they think that they will remain happy wid them then let them be happy............

Title: Gay marriage should be legalized Content: I accept

Title: Gay marriage should be legal Content: extend

Title: Gay marriage should be legal Content: Extend

Title: The marriage of Homosexuals should be legal Content: i cant post i will explain later

Title: Gay Marriage should be legal. Content: Once again, thank you.

Title: Gay (Same-sex) Marriage Should Be Legal Content: I'm basing my arguments on the point of happiness. Every human has the right to happiness, and I don't see anyone disagreeing with that. It's just basic morals that anyone can agree with. In the meantime, you have refused to refute any of the points I made. Go do that.

Title: Gay Marriage should be legal. Content: This is meant to be a friendly debate about basic human rights, created primarily because I am terminally bored. Homosexuals, be they male or female, aren't part of some secret sect, they aren't in any way different physically, mentally or emotionally, their political views are just as collectively diverse as heterosexual views, their private activities with each other should be dismissed as none of anyone's business just as easily as the private activities of heterosexual people. Let them marry if they so wish, they're ultimately no different from heterosexuals, they just have alternative tastes in intimacy.

Title: Gay Marriage Should Be Legal Content: In my belief, everyone is equal and therefore they should be treated equally no matter what their are and what they stand for. I believe in Same Sex Marriages and the right for Equality for the whole LGBT community. When two people get married, it signifies their unconditional love and commitment to each other. A member of the LGBT community, primarily a homosexual human being, is still a human being regardless of which gender they prefer to be with. The support for gay marriage is so very little, it is sickening. The battle for same-sex marriages has been very heated since 1993 (1). Many people, especially heterosexuals, do not understand the need and want of this battle. Not only have homosexuals fought for equality, but mankind as a whole has fought for equality and rights. Therefore, the first amendment was created allowing freedom of expression and freedom of religion. The law banning Same-Sex Marriage goes against the "Freedom Of Expression" by limiting human beings to who they can and can not marry. Many people try to use the fight of Religion and God against Same-Sex Marriages, although I am no expert when it comes to the Bible, but in the book of Leviticus Chapter 18 verse 22 it says; "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination" (Leviticus 18:22, King James). No where in the Bible does it specifically say Homosexuality is wrong and/or against God and Religion. However, this does go against the belief that we, as human beings, should not judge other human beings. The meaning of "democracy" is a type of government which is heavily ruled by the people in efforts to create equality for everyone. This "equality for everyone" should include Homosexual Human Beings. Even though, Democracy is supposed to the type of government ran in American, same-sex marriage is still a reoccurring "issue". To get married is simply a choice. Therefore, this choice should even be available to two men, two women, or a man and a women. Claire Snyder states that marriage is "the personal bond, the community-recognized relationship, the religious right, and the civil contract" (2). These words "marriage", "husband", and "wife" are thought of as "titles" so therefore, why is it that Homosexuals can not choose to obtain these titles for themselves and the one they love? Out of fifty "free" states in America, only six allow Same-Sex Marriage. The six allowing states are New York, Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. Some other Same-Sex Couples flee to Canada where is it legal to get married regardless of the genders. I believe solely in equality, regardless of anything such as a person's age, gender, race, political party, social status, and most importantly- sexual orientation. Everyone should be treated equally. At the end of the day, what does a Homosexual couple's relationship, or any couple's relationship in that matter, have anything to do with anyone else? 1- A Brief History of: Gay Marriage. (2008). Time, 171(22), 16. 2- Snyder, C. (2006). Gay Marriage and Democracy: Equality for All. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.,

Title: Gay Marriage Should Be Legal Content: I win!

Title: Gay marriage. Content: Gay marriage should be illegal.

Title: Gay marriage should be legalized in the United States Content: .

Title: Gay marriage should be legalized Content: gg

Title: Gay marriage should be legalised Content: I accept:)

Title: Resolved: Gay marriage ought be legalized. Content: Contention 1. Homosexuality is a sin in virtually every religion. It is common knowledge that most religions in the world do not support a homosexual marriage. In fact, 53% of people do not support homosexual marriage (1). Legally allowing homosexual marriage is offensive to religious organizations and anyone who does not support homosexual marriage which is a larger part of the population. Contention 2. Legalizing homosexual marriage weakens the definition and respect for marriage. Currently, within the United States, there is a 50% divorce rate (2) this already weakens the definition and respect for marriage. A law allowing gay marriage would speed this deterioration by increasing the number of "non-serious" marriages, friends who want to save on taxes. Marriage is the most sacred institution within the United States and is deteriorating. A law allowing homosexual marriage would only speed this deterioration. Contention 3. This will further weaken traditional family values essential to society. Society is strong if there is a strong core family unit. In the United States this core family unit of a man, women, and children has sustained the United States through two world wars, the Great Depression, and terrorist attacks. Society begins to break down when this family unit breaks down, such as in the United States. Introducing a new "form" of family would would only complicate and deteriorate society. Contention 4. This provides a slippery slope in the legality of marriage. The question asked here is what comes next? Tradition dictates that a marriage is between a man and a women, biologically this makes perfect sense as only a man and women can procreate. Gay rights activists claim that gay marriage should be legalized because it hurts nobody but, this can start a chain reaction which destroys the institution of marriage. You see their logic can be applied anywhere. Why can't someone marry their dog? It doesn't hurt anyone. Or why not their parents or brother/sister? It doesn't hurt anyone. This may seem absurd and obviously a significant portion of the United States would not support it but, that does not matter. All that is needed is a single judge to rule it correct and then apply the doctrine of stare decisis to impose a law on everyone. Just look at the ruling California judges made about the Pledge of Allegiance (3). It does not matter what the public believes in this case. Contention 5. The gay lifestyle should not be encouraged because studies show it leads to lower life expectancy. Studies show that homosexuals have, on average, life expectancies 20 years lower then the rest of the population. In 1997 and 2005, two separate studies confirmed this hypothesis. Respectively the groups conducting the studies were published in the International Journal of Epidemiology and Psycological Reports respectively (4). 1- http://www.cbsnews.com... 2- http://www.cdc.gov... 3- http://articles.sfgate.com... 4- http://www.lifesitenews.com...

Title: Gay marriage should be legal Content: Gay marriage should definitely be legal because it is a fundamental right for every person to be able to marry who you love and be happy. In the constitution one of the main points was that every man was created equal and this should apply to gays and lesbians. Yes, gays and lesbians were created and born that way and its not a choice. It has been proven that you don't chose to be gay and there is nothing wrong with that. I ask you this question, do you think that the statement all men are created equal don't apply to gays and lesbians?

Title: Gay marriage should be legal. Content: To begin, this is not a debate over wether government ought to recognize the institution of marriage. The resolution states that gay marriage should be legal. If something is recognized as legal it is recognized by the government. Secondly, this is not a debate about wether government should incentivize marriage or wether gay couples should enjoy the same tax benefits as straight couples. The resolution speaks exclusively to legality; nothing more. Legality, for our purposes, is only the ability to do something without punishment or incentive designed to hinder any given act. Gay marriage should be legal. A. Only acts that encroach upon the life, liberty, or property of another should to be illegal. Our founding fathers wrote that government ought be charged with three essential tasks: preserving our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property). People, by the virtue of their humanity, are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (ownership of property), and are entitled to enjoy them to the fullest possible extent unless or until their enjoyment hampers another's enjoyment of their rights. In essence, my rights end where yours begin. It is from this principal that the American concept of equality is derived. Where the object is to uphold natural rights, the task of government then (in domestic terms) is only to make illegal those acts which are not germane to natural rights, their preservation, or enjoyment thereof by all people. If any act by any individual or third party encroaches on the enjoyment of anyone else's rights, that act ought be illegal because no person has the right to deprive another of their rights without consent or without just cause. B. Gay marriage does not jeopardize the life, liberty, or enjoyment of property of another. Marriage, in essence, is a contractual agreement whereby two consenting parties agree to share their lives together. It is an institution that requires consent of two adults; traditionally centered upon either romance or utility or both for both people who marry one another. There has been no substantial indication that gay marriage is harmful to any member of society, wether we consider society as a whole, individuals, children, or those who should desire to marry one another. There is accordingly no conflict with any individual's enjoyment of life, liberty, or property in any way, shape, or form. As such, gay marriage should not be illegal. If something is not illegal, then it is legal. Ergo, gay marriage should be legal.

Title: Gay marriage should be legal. Content: Part One: Right of Choice The biggest problem with your first argument is this statement "In this case, since there should be a freedom of choice, gay marriage should be legal. " You are not only claiming that gay marriage should be legal, but you are arguing that it should be legal because there should be a freedom of choice. First you must argue for a freedom of choice before you argue for gay marriage. Then it is argued "for people who prefer living with someone of the same-sex who they love, if gay marriage is illegal where they live, they often have a mentally tough and challenging time choosing between marrying someone of the opposite sex, or not marrying at all. " This is may be true (no evidence was presented), but when making a decision about making something legal, it is important to think about the society as a whole and not just about the 2% of the population that are homosexual. Homosexuality is actually dangerous to the society as a whole. It spreads disease, there are higher sexual molestation rates among them. And by the way, the arguments my opponent has used could literally be used to support "voyeurism, necrophilia, bestiality, polygamy, incest, exhibitionism, fetishes, frotterism, masochism, sadism, etc. ? (. https://carm.org......). Homosexuality is dangerous whether people want to admit it or not. Link: exodusglobalalliance. org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60. php Part Two: Right to Love It was then said that "Secondly, there is a right to love. No one can stop you from mentally loving someone. " No actually, there is no right to love. My opponent hasn't even defined love yet so this whole argument is somewhat meaningless. And it doesn't seem like the majority of the homosexual community actually knows what love is (1 Cor 13 is my definition of love). Statistics show that "83% of the homosexual men surveyed estimated they had had sex with 50 or more partners in their lifetime, 43% estimated they had sex with 500 or more partners; 28% with 1,000 or more partners. " Doesn't sound like love to me. See link above for the evidence of this fact. And just out of curiosity. .. do you think I should have special rights because I am a Christian? Part Three: This is your Life It was then said that "Lastly, this is your life. A person has a life, with their own body. " My response to that is who says? Prove that statement and don't just keep asserting things without any justification. What gives a person the right to do whatever they want? But the most disturbing statement made was this: "Part of what you have to do to legalize gay marriage, is to temporarily accept the world without judgment, so that you can vision these perspectives. " As a Christian I know that homosexuality is a sin and what you are asking me to do is to completely ignore my moral values to give the minority special privileges. And the worse part is that I know that homosexuality will cause harm to society but you want me to completely remove my knowledge of these matters merely because you believe they should have rights. I don't think so.

Title: Gay marriage should be legalized Content: I win

Title: Gay marriage should be illegal Content: Hope it goes well

Title: Gay Marriage is Constitutional, and should be legalized. Content: Homosexuals are not gay by choice [1], and there is no scientific evidence to support any psychological or religious methods to "cure" it. The American Psychological Association has also acknowledged that homosexuality is in no way a mental illness. [2] Mental Illness and choice having been soundly ruled out, it must be determined that homosexuality is A: Natural B: Harmless Most counter-arguments for the case on Gay Marriage stem from the Bible, and its claim that homosexuality is in itself a sin. However, it is clearly stated through the First Amendment/Establishment Clause that the establishment of a national religion is unconstitutional. This means that the laws of Christianity (or any religion) have no place in Legislature. [3] Religious arguments ALSO being ruled out, that leaves the (few) unbiased secular arguments. I opt to let Con choose which ones he would like me to account for. [1] http://www.avert.org... [2] American Psychological Association, 'Resolution on Appropriate Affirmative Responses to Sexual Orientation Distress and Change Efforts'. [3] http://law2.umkc.edu...

Title: Gay marriage should be legalized Content: I will start by stating my argument:Two people of the same sex who love each other should be allowed to publicly celebrate their commitment and receive the same benefits of marriage as opposite sex couples. Who has the right to stop two people from devoting their complete love for each other? And why? Gay marriage should be protected by the Constitution's obligations to liberty and equality. Denying homosexual couples the right to marry is to label them as inferior and unworthy of our basic rights. Why is it not acceptable to discriminate against a persons race, but it is against their sexual orientation? Homosexual marriage rights will have no impairing effects on that of heterosexual couples. To claim that this legalization will hinder the sanctity of marriage is a ludicrous claim seeing as the divorce rate is already between 40% and 50%. To claim that marriage is a religious institution is ridiculous. Marriage was originally a religious institution in which daughters were sold for calfs. Should we revert back to this? It is after all the original form of marriage! Imposing your beliefs on them is annoying and pointless. If you don't agree with homosexuality, then don't be a homosexual. There is no need to impose your beliefs upon others and deny them happiness. Refusing someone their rights based upon their sexual orientation is wrong and ignorant. They are just as much of people as the rest, and they deserve their very basic intrinsic likes as everyone else also does. (The pursuit of happiness is one of those rights, by the way. ) Thank you for accepting this debate. I look forward to hearing your opening statement.

Title: Gay or same sex marriages should be legal. Content: Homosexuals have the exact same rights as heterosexuals minus the sake that they can say they are married. Civil unions offer the same benefits of traditional marriages, so why is there such a push for legalizing the marriage between same sex couples? Homosexuals are not segregated and neither are they given fewer rights. They can have all the rights of marriage except for the name. A couple does not need to be married to live a happy, comfortable, and free lifestyle.

Title: Gay Marriage Should be Legalized Content: Same-Sex Marriage should be legalized in every state because there is no reason for it to be illegal, as it doesn't hurt anyone. It is also a right given from the fourteenth amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Title: Gay marriage should be legal. Content: In your vote you say that because of biblical reasons that we should not allow it.

Title: Gay marriage should be legal Content: Concerning your request for clarification, I am not saying that the federal government should make it explicitly legal for homosexual couples to marry. That is not what governments generally do. They don't say what is legal, just what is illegal. My argument is that not only should the federal government never amend the Constitution to bar homosexual couples from marrying, but that it is furthermore unconstitutional, unjust, and illogical for states to make gay marriage illegal or otherwise "define" marriage as between individuals of the opposite sex. I find it hard to understand how you could not see the connection in my syllogism. It is very simple. Men have the right to marry women, and women have the right to marry men. If you agree that men and women should have equal rights, it logically follows that men should have the right to marry men and women to marry women. This simply gives men and women the same rights. You try to say that the right is given to both men and women to marry individuals of the opposite sex. It seems to me that that interpretation is quite full of problems. What about transgender individuals, both pre-op and post-op? How exactly does the government define sex? Is it defined by sex chromosomes, reproductive organs, or what the individual feels his/her sex is? I realize that the 10th amendment states clearly that powers not specified by the Constitution as reserved for the federal government are for the states. I am not disputing this. States can make laws independently of the federal government. However, they can't make laws that are in violation of the United States Constitution. But by baning gay marriage outright, states have done just that. They are abridging specfic privileges of specific individuals (not couples), based solely on sexual orientation. Your first contention doesn't actually address my argument. As I said, I am not looking for the federal government to make a law saying that gay marriage is legal. I think that the federal government should just enforce the Constitution and keep states from making it illegal. I was actually looking for my opponent to make arguments as to why gay marriage to be specifically ILLEGAL.

Title: Gay marriage should be legal Content: First let me say that I do not believe that you choose to be gay. I believe that you are born that way. Some of my closest friends are gay, most of which I've known for years, and they all say that they knew they were different since they were children. I do not believe that you can "cure homosexuality" as I've heard some say, nor do I believe that gays should not have the exact same rights as everyone else. Which leads me to the topic of gay marriage. The most common reasoning behind the controversy of gay marriage is that marriage in the Bible is defined as a union between a man and a woman, and that it is declared "detestable" to lay with the same sex (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, and Romans 1:26-27). While I support those who are close to their faith, which explains their personal sexual lifestyle, I do not support the government trying to control someone's lifestyle. Let me explain. According to the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…". While this statement implies that the government shall make the church the center of government (i.e. you have to be a certain religion to vote), this does apply to other things. Anyone remember Roy Moore? He was an Alabama supreme court justice who refused to have a monument of the 10 commandments removed from his courtroom. The controversy behind it was seperation of church and state. Moore argued for no seperation while many argued otherwise. However, when it comes to the subject of gay marriage, people are quick to throw no seperation of church and state back into the equation, when many of them thought otherwise during the Moore controversy. Also, we live in a democracy; a government "of the people". The governement makes decisions that are good for the country as a whole. So since when did the government decide that it was their place to decide who does, or in this case, doesn't get married. Shouldn't that be a choice left up to the two individuals? Besides a piece of paper that legally binds you to another person, it also entitles you to many benefits. One of which is making life decisions for that person if something was to happen to them. But because of their lifestyle, homosexuals are not entitled to those benefits. Example, say a man & woman go to Vegas, not knowing each other. They both end up at a bar one night, get drunk, and get married. They were not in a conscious frame of mind when they got married, so it isn't within the intimate characteristics of marriage in the first place. The next day, the woman is in a car crash. If she dies, then the man is entitled to all her assets that she left behind, simply because he is her husband. If she is put in ICU, say on life support, he can now make the decision whether to leave her on life support or turn the machine off. So even though this marriage was "on a whim" because these 2 were drunk, the USA gives them all the benefits. But say that a homosexual couple who have been together a long while, and love each other, decide to get married. They can't. If one gets hurt and on life support, that partner cannot make any decisions whatsoever for their loved one. I'm sorry, but that's not right. Also, this country has an immense history of human rights. The united states claims to be a nation of "equal opportunity" for all citizens. However, homosexuals can't get married, except in some states. And even then, they have to be a resident of that state for a certain amount of time. Also, there is also a huge debate now about Clinton's "Don't ask, don't tell" policy, which allowed homosexuals to serve in the military. What I want to know is this: if the United States is truly an "equal opportunity" nation, then why are they so quick to dismiss homosexuals like they don't deserve the same rights as everyone else? Does a homosexual not deserve to live their life with their partner and receive the benefits that come with that union?

Title: Gay Marriage Should Be Illegal Content: this sounds interesting HIT ME

Title: Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized In America Content: I strongly disagree with your right from the start. Marriage is not strictly about procreation; if it was, it would be illegal for infertile people to be married. And what about heterosexual couples who do not plan on having children? Should we ban marriage for everyone who doesn't plan on having childen? I also disagree with the statement about love; we are not animals. Marriage may have been formed for the benefit of rearing children, but this is America in the 21st century. There is no need to hold ourselves to the standards set thousands of years ago. In our society, marriage is fully for the reason of love. Family is not the main reason anymore. I disagree with you that homosexuals have "little positive benefits" from marriage. Marriage provides rights and benefits such as joint income tax, inheriting a spouse's estate, legal rights to making financial/medical decisions on your spouse's behalf, taking a family leave to care for your ill spouse, receiving retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse, legal rights to making funeral/burial arrangements, and many more government/economic/tax/medical/housing benefits. Denying homosexuals marriage is denying them these rights. Although you don't need a contract to show love between people, you need a contract to gain these benefits for the person you love. I completely, utterly disagree with your next statement. It is not a fallacy; animals cannot, and never will be able to give consent to sexual intercourse with a human. Consent needs to be verbal; a yes or a no, which an animal is incapable of doing. Although physical signs may point to consent, it does not equal consent. Does a drunk woman taking off her shirt give someone permission to violate her? I have never heard of an animal instigating sex, unless the owner has trained them to do so, which is not right. A dog humping your leg is not instigating sex, and it does NOT give a human consent to have sex with them. Animals are instinctual; their instinct is not consent. Also, animals are not as intelligent as humans. Most animals only have the mental capacity of a 4 year old child or younger. In the same way that a child cannot consent, an animal cannot consent. They also do not have intercourse for pleasure, only to reproduce. That is why having sex with an animal is always taking advantage of them, and always raping them. The marriage between humans will never equal marriage between a human and a person or animal who cannot give consent. I can agree with you on your next statement; homosexuality WAS taboo, and that is not a very solid reason to deny the correlation between gay marriage and incestuous marriage. However, incest can cause emotional damage since the person you are engaging in sexual acts with is someone who have a familial bond with; breaking that bond to form a sexual one has the potential to cause mental harm, especially if one side feels like they are being used. In your next statement, you are actually solidifying my point. How would gay marriage be a slippery slope into incestuous marriage if it is already legal, in fact, made legal BEFORE gay marriage? Not only in Indiana, this is legal. In fact, in 20 states, 1st cousin marriage is fully legal, without any age restrictions. In 4 other states, it is legal with age restrictions. In 2013, gay marriage was only fully legal in 13 states. I don't see how gay marriage can lead to a slippery slope to incestuous marriage if marriage between first cousins was legal before marriage between homosexuals. I did not mention polygamy in my argument because it is irrelevant. This argument is about whether consenting adults should be able to marry consenting adults- which I believe is true. I do not see a logical reason why polygamy should /not/ legalized, (I may remind you that polyamory is a real romantic orientation). But that is an argument for another day. I give a logical reason as to why gay marriage would not lead to polygamous marriages, but I also do not have a logical reason as to what is inherently wrong with polygamous marriages if it is healthy one, instead of more of a "love triangle" situation. Are you saying there is something wrong with a masculine female or a feminine male? In this world, there will always be children who are less sympathetic, or more masculine/feminine. I don't think that is a valid argument because that does not necessarily put them at a distinct disadvantage. And as I said before; marriage in our society is not about raising children. If it was, we would have to ban infertile people and couples that have no intention to have children from marriage. I do not think that marriage should be banned from a specific group of people because there have been studies that might show that their children may be more masculine or feminine, because not all gay marriage will result in children. I disagree with your statement about "normality". Heterosexuality is indeed the most prominent sexuality; that is why heteronormativity exists. However, the word normal has a negative connotation attached to it, which implies that anything other than heterosexuality is bad. I think that instead of demonizing valid sexual orientations, we should celebrate them. Many people of other sexualities "stay in the closet" because of this, making heterosexuality seem to be the more normal. Refusing to expose your child to anything but heterosexual relationships makes this even more prominent. I agree that marriage is not required for a loving relationship, but children see it that way. You stated that homosexuals raising children can bring negative affects; I will argue that homosexuals raising children while /not/ being married can have negative effects too. When they are taught from a young age that marriage = love, what will they think when they learn that their parents are not married? If you have studied the psychology of the child's mind, you will know that these sort of things can stress them out, confuse them, and have negative effects emotionally. To end this, I respect the majority of your arguments, but I think that the benefits gay marriage greatly outweigh the cons. It has been said that anywhere from 3-8% of the population is homosexual. Even more so are sexualities that are neither heterosexual or homosexual. I personally think that denying that amount of the population marriage and the rights that come from marriage should is discrimination. Saying that marriage is only for procreating wouldn't and shouldn't apply in a legal situation, since many couples who are eligible for marriage cannot or do not want to have children. In our society, it is useless to say that marriage can only be for purposes of bearing children.

Title: Gay marriage ought to be legalized in the U.S. Content: To recap: Marriage is a fundamental right of American citizens guaranteed by both the morals set by the Declaration of Independence and the regulations of the Constitution. Leaving it up to the states is both unethical and morally reprehensible, especially as many are passing laws that are banning homosexual marriages. From ethical, logical, and legal standpoints, all facts indicate that gay marriage ought to be legalized in the U.S. When we examine the arguments my opponent and I brought up, it is clear that it is the federal government's duty to uphold our citizen's privileges and our duty to support the equality of all people- gay or straight, young or old, male or female.

Title: Gay (Same-sex) Marriage Should Be Legal Content: "Where do you get your morals from that two sexual perverts should be treated as normal people and allowed to invade the institution of marriage, which has the primary purpose of procreation?" Where do you get your morals from that homosexuals aren't normal people? This is a legal debate, not necessarily a moral one. Marriage is simply a union between two people. Homosexuals are still people. We should extend marriage rights to them as well. Their desire is simply to be happy with the person that they love. The three "unalienable rights" listed in the Constitution are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. The freedom to marry someone of the same sex falls under both Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. While some religions object to homosexuality, there is no reason that this should influence legislation. The first amendment explicitly states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." The founding fathers also strongly promoted a separation of church and state. Therefore, religion has no place in this debate. Marriage has traditionally been between a male and a female, but this simply because the majority of the populace throughout history A. was heterosexual and/or B. believed in a religion which prohibited same-sex marriage. However, many today do not object to homosexuality. While procreation is certainly a big aspect of marriage, people do not marry simply for the purpose of procreation. Most in America marry for love. That is the purpose of marriage - to show a bond between two people. I see no reason why we should not extend this bond to homosexuals. Some have a moral objection to homosexuality. However, these morals tend to be based on very weak grounds, often in religion. As I explained earlier, religion should not be a part of this. A large majority of people in America do not think that same-sex marriage should be illegal. [1] Therefore, it would be inappropriate to enforce these anti-homosexual morals on others. For as long as we tolerate different religions, we have to tolerate beliefs that don't agree with some of our religious teachings. I think that this applies very strongly to gay marriage. Source: [1] http://www.isidewith.com...

Title: Gay or same sex marriages should be legal. Content: I believe that gay couples should be allowed to marry whoever they want just as heterosexual couples do. Just because of your sexual orientation, you should not be treated differently than the majority of the population. Denying gays the right to legalized marriage is a violation of religious freedom because civil and religious marriages are two separate institutions. In the case of Christianity, the Bible states to "do unto others as you would like done unto you". How would a heterosexual couple feel if they were in the position (as are homosexuals) of such oppression? It is completely unfair to deprive homosexual couples the benefits of marriage. This includes joint ownership rights, medical decision-making rights, taxation and inheritance rights, access to family health coverage, and protection in the event of the relationship ending. A same-sex couple is not allowed to make medical decisions for their partner because they cannot be legally married to them. Therefore, their partner can be on their deathbed and they will not be allowed to make decisions regarding their life until someone in their family arrives. How can this be okay? Homosexuality is much more common and accepted as a lifestyle nowadays, most evidence strongly supporting biological causation. Denying gay legalized marriages is also a form of minority discrimination. Allowing for legalized gay marriages does not hurt society or anyone in particular. It is only allowing others to be happy in their lives. The same financial benefits that apply to heterosexual marriages should apply to same-sex marriages. Another pro that comes from legalizing gay marriages is the increase in child adoptions. Because gay couples cannot pro-create the adoption rate would rise significantly. Children would be put in a loving family rather than a numerous list of foster homes that many times take advantage of children in order to receive a pay check. If I were unable to keep my child, I would feel much better knowing he/she was going to a loving same-sex couple who was going to love and take very good care of him/her rather than 6 different foster homes gain ownership that did not show any appreciation for him/her.

Title: Gay Marriage should be legal Content: Legal - deriving authority from or founded on law http://www.merriam-webster.com... My argument is that no marriage should be legal, because all that government does with the legalization of marriage is discriminate between those who are married and those who are not. Tax cuts for the married [1] are really tax hikes for the non-married, or reverse, in some bizzare scenarios. Bonus rights to the married can easily be afforded to everybody. 1. http://www.taxpolicycenter.org... I would just like to clarify that my stance is in no way discriminatory against homosexuals whatsoever. Thank you, and good luck, abard.

Title: Homosexual marriage should be legal Content: marriage is the ceremoney through which man and woman unite to procreate, that is to say create a new being. in this way the race of man increase in number on earth.this facility of procreation is absent in gay/lesbian marriage.if gay/lesbian marriage is legalized, a way will be created through which population of human race would decrease in future. therefore gay/lesbian marriage should not be legalized.

Title: Gay Marriage should be legal in all states Content: Are you suggesting we make a new "marriage" for both Heterosexuals and homosexuals that takes the religion out of the equation? If so, I feel like it's a good idea, but I still feel it is abiding by the constitution, the main law in our country, to allow homosexuals to be married, and for the rights given by that marriage to be fully acknowledged as much as Heterosexual married couples.

Title: Gay Marriage should be legalized! Content: I begin my concluding my argument by first Saying that this is the begins of you're article "The first amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" The two parts, known as the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause" respectively. Nothing in there says separation of church and state which again was a suggestion. Homosexuality as you said happens in the wild, which in the scientific sense means that it is natural, but if we look at it from God's point which was heterosexual marriage it is completely and utterly unnatural. And yes Hetero was invented by God just as Homo was invented by Cicero. In the economic spectrum you said that gay marriage raised New Jersey 248 billion dollars, but you failed to mention the protest and court cases gays fie that closes business and forces people to lose jobs. Homosexual couples on average only make about 2 million dollars more then the average heterosexual couples(CNN). And finally I'm not saying the abuse in homosexual homes is worse, just that is is much less publicized. I end on this Homosexuality as never been good without attacking some random institution that refuses them service, as my oppent neglected to mention. This ladies and Gentlemen is one of the many reasons Homosexuality is bad.- Batman3773

Title: Gay Marriage should not be legal Content: And that's that folks!

Title: Gay marriage should be illegal. Content: Extend all arguments.

Title: The marriage of Homosexuals should be legal Content: Uh. All right.

Title: Gay Marriage Should Be Legal Content: The LGBT community is not fighting to change the beliefs of any religion nor make a "declaration of war on God". Just as racial equality was fought for and is still minimally fought for; Homosexuals are simply fighting for equality, to be recognized as equals to heterosexuals in regards to marriage. The inequality in homosexual and heterosexual marriage, portray heterosexual marriage to be right and homosexual marriage to be wrong. No marriage is wrong. There are many people from all religions who support gay marriage and do not label two members of the same sex getting married as a means of going against God or being unjust. ->Con implies that The Bible basically says that everyone is a sinner, somehow or someway. ->I say if everyone is basically a sinner, then why is homosexuality so highly argued against? If eventually everyone is going to sin and become a "sinner" according to Con, why can't everyone be left alone and live their life how they want, even if they wish to be with someone of the same gender. ->Con states: "If God is real and his mercy is available" which implies that God and his mercy MAY be real. -> I say how is Con going to fight against Homosexuals being married with only Religion as his argument and then state "If God is real and his mercy is available"? Con seems unsure when he/she wrote this sentence, but I know that of course God's mercy is available. On numerous accounts The Bible addresses the mercy of God. As Con said everyone is a sinner according to the Bible therefore God is clearly merciful, labeling and accepting everyone as a sinner. With that being the case, then homosexuals are no more or less sinners than everyone else, including those in a same sex marriage, is implied to be. ->Con says: "If a gay couple wants to be recognized as joined, change your status on Facebook. Stay out of the Church." ->I ask; what does Facebook have to do with this argument and the equality of human beings? This argument is about legally and rightfully being equal and married to the person they love. Also, it is recognizing the Homosexual population as human beings and married instead of a "union". ->Con says: "Marriage is not an art form. Unless you mean to express you devotion to God, don't do it. If you insist on doing anyway, don't do it in a Church." ->I say; When I speak of "Freedom of Expression", I recognize "expression" as showing your love, devotion, and commitment to something or someone, possibly even through marriage. ->Con stated: "Again, gay people are free. Marriage is a religious ceremony. Period." ->I say: EQUALITY has NOTHING to do with being free. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, equality is "the quality or state of being equal". Therefore, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, equal means "of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another". Therefore, the argument and fight for Equality for Same Sex Marriages, has absolutely NOTHING to do with freedom. I await your reply. http://www.merriam-webster.com... http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Title: Gay Marraige Should Be Allowed. Content: . ;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? Gay marriage should NOT be legal for the following reasons: 1. Laws should not be passed if they are specifically in violation of the will of the people. The majority of people in the US are against homosexual marriages (1). Therefore, it does not follow that we should permit same-sex marriages. 2. It is reasonable to believe that homosexuality is sexual perversion. There is no evidenced gene, biological necessity, or evolutionary benefit for homosexuality. To accept my opponent's argument of "innateness" is to also accept, by logical necessity, pedophilia, zoophilia, and other sexual abnormalities. 3. Homosexuals have no more and no less rights than heterosexuals. The idea of any inequality existing in terms of rights is balderdash. Moreover, civil unions offer the same benefits of traditional marriages. Homosexuals are NOT segregated, nor are they given less rights. 4. By virtue of permitting individuals to marry partners of the same sex, marriage will quickly lose meaning and purpose. Who is to stop a man (or woman) from marrying, not just one, but two (or three) partners? If the logic used to permit same-sex marriages is to be used, what logical reasons does one have for barring polygamy, polyandry, or even pederasty? . ;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? Now in response to my opponent's assertions: "let me state that a civil union is not a reasonable compromise for a legal marriage. " Indeed, it is not a compromise at all. Both homosexuals AND heterosexuals have equal rights to marriage and civil unions. ----- "The concept of ‘separate but equal' has already failed. Segregation is not a solution when it comes to rights. History has proven this. " To begin with, as was evidenced with proposition 8 in California, gay marriage is not a civil right. Also, there is absolutely no analogous connection between segregation and gay marriage. Homosexuals are given the exact same rights as everybody else – and they are most definitely not separated. ----- "Secondly, where is the benefit of oppressing gays from marrying? " Nobody is being oppressed. There are, however, plenty of negative repercussions. School sex-education programs would have to be entirely revamped to support equal say; it opens doors to polygamy and other such sexual aberrations; it is contra-popular vote. What are the benefits? They can have all the rights of marriage except for the name. A couple does not need marriage to be happy, comfortable, and free. ----- "Those who claim it is immoral are really just ignorant and foolish. " Everybody is ignorant of something, but it is not my ignorance and foolishness that you should be concerned with. Who are you to claim proprietary rights to what IS and IS NOT moral? How are you defining morality and by what objective source is it obtained? What makes your moral standards obligatory and trumping? It may very well be immoral, but it is a bad idea irrespective of morality. ----- "In the case of Christianity, the bible states to do unto others what you would like done onto you" And I would be quite thankful to the chap that informed me that my actions were in moral error. Are you willing to use the entire source in which the above quote is derived? If you are not willing, then do not use it as part of your argument – because as you will surely find, it is not your position that it supports. . ;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? Conclusion: My opponent has given no practical benefits for same-sex marriages. She has failed to show that homosexuals are not receiving equal rights. She finds no moral compunction in unilaterally trumping the popular vote of US citizens and permitting same-sex marriages – this is against the ideals of our nation. She calls homosexuality innate without proving it as such. She apparently lays claim to an unspecified moral objective that is both binding and obligatory. She calls me foolish and ignorant – and to this I can only chuckle. I look forward to my opponent's response Inquiretruth . ;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? .;'*^? Sources: 1. . http://www.quinnipiac.edu...

Title: Gay marriage should not be legalized by any governing body in the United States of America. Content: I do not disagree with your argument. While I do not support homosexuality I do not feel it is my nor anyone else's place to keep two people from having a relationship. Homosexual couples who want to be married are no different than other couples who are likewise in love, in and most cases, they are often more in love than a heterosexual couple. Homosexual couples know that in order to petition for marriage they must jump through many hoops and expose themselves to criticism from outside sources. This is not the case for heterosexual couples and thus I think these couples are more inclined to marry on a whim instead of truly considering whether or not they really love one another enough to integrate their lives. While this is all well and good, marriage is a establishment created by the governing body of the United States and as such, in order to be legally married a couple must seek the approval of this marriage by the government. What homosexual couples are asking for is the recognition by the government of their marriage to one another. This has mainly to do with the benefits that come from a legalized marriage. It has been our nation's policy that we do no recognize homosexual communions. This is what is so perplexing about the current and most popular argument in the name of gay marriage. The argument is that a government has no right to ban homosexual marriages and the government, recognizing their inability to do so, has done nothing of the sort. Homosexuals contend that that government has no say in who can and cannot marry. Unfortunately, the government is the body that has sole power in the recognition of marriage between two people and it has ruled that a marriage is the communion between a man and a woman. If two gay people would like to marry then let them, but it will not be recognized by the government. This throws a kink the main argument put forth by gay marriage advocates who repeatedly call for the government to not interfere with the continuation of homosexual marriages. The bottom line in this: homosexuals are free to marry or commune with whomever they wish. The government has no right to establish a policy against homosexual relations. What it does have a right to do is recognize them and since gay people seek that recognition, it is the right of the government to establish a policy on what couples can marry. If gay people want recognition by the government of their marriages then they will not/nor do they have the Constitutional right to do so. Having put forth my argument I am eager to hear yours.

Title: Gay marriage should be legalized Content: Should heterosexual infertile people or those who do not desire to have children be banned from marriage as well? They too cannot or choose not to reproduce and "continue the survival of society" as my opponent says. Heterosexual marriage could remain important to society if homosexual marriage were to be legalized. Where in the legalization of homosexual marriage is the harming or hindering the marriage of heterosexuals? At one point in my opponents argument, they state "Because homosexuals do not create children, their marriage has no purpose and that is why it must remain illegal" Ability or desire to create offspring has never been a qualification for marriage... why should it be now on the topic of Gay marriage? Gay marriages can also bring financial gain to state and local governments. Revenue from gay marriage comes from marriage licenses, higher income taxes (the so-called "marriage penalty"), and decreases in costs for state benefit programs.[1] Allowing same-sex couples to marry will give them access to basic rights such as hospital visitation during an illness, taxation and inheritance rights, access to family health coverage, and protection in the event of the relationship ending.[2] The seventh source in which the images are provided seems to not work for me. In regards to those graphs, where was the data taken from and for how long were those statistics taken over? The graphs are comparing married heterosexual couples to homosexual relationships. That is not the same, at all. Also, the graphs state that divorced parents generally make bad parents.. I really don't agree with that terrible generalization. My parents are divorced and still love and care for me just as much, if not more. Actually, Massachusetts; which became the first state to legalize gay marriage in 2004, had the lowest divorce rate in the country in 2008. Its divorce rate declined 21% between 2003 and 2008. Alaska, the first state to alter its constitution to prohibit gay marriage in 1998, saw a 17.2% increase in its divorce rate. The seven states with the highest divorce rates between 2003 and 2008 all had constitutional prohibitions to gay marriage.[3] The argument that divorce rates would be increased with the legalization of homosexual marriage is just untrue. Conclusion I have proven that Gay marriage would benefit society and it does not hinder children whatsoever. Also, the divorce rate may actually decline with the legalization of homosexual marriage. [1]Kathryn Perry, "The Cost of Gay Marraige - In Dollars and Cents," Christian Science Monitor, May 27, 2009 [2]American Psychological Association, "American Psychological Association Reiterates Support for Same-sex Marriage," www.apa.org, Aug. 11, 2010 [3]Nate Silver, "Divorce Rates Higher in States with Gay Marriage Bans," www.fivethirtyeight.com, Jan. 12, 2010

Title: Gay Marriage should be legal Content: i'm not sure what is really established by stating that there's a rights campaign that says same sex couples want to be married, to honor their relationship in the greatest way our society offers etc. that is self evident in this debate. also, pointing out that a majority of americans support gay marriage doesn't prove or disprove that it is that it is something that we should do. if we allow civil unions, there would not be the limitations described by pro, such as lack of hospital visits. also, much of the things they are denied can be replicated by legal transactions, such as wills instead of natural intestate property transfers. our system of hetero marriage may not be evolutionariarly traditioal, but it is traditional in our culture. and that's all that matters. and it is better established and more natural than gay marriage.

Title: Gay Marriage Should Be Legal Content: Overall I do not believe that this should even be a debate. Evidence has surfaced that homosexuality is generally not even a choice, it can be genetic and/or born with it. It is completely their decision and it does not affect the rest of society. It is not others business and it should stay that way. We have deemed homosexuality as taboo or just disgusting, mostly because of damaging religions, and any men and women alike are afraid to come out and be themselves. This should not be an environment that we should have to live in and it is impeding our rite to the pursuit of happiness. Thank you, TruthHurtsBro

Title: Gay Marriage should be legal. Content: I'm not saying we need to get rid of heterosexual marriage, but we need to consider homosexual marriage. Yes, heterosexual marriage is a tradition many carry, but some traditions need to be changed. Homosexuals are no different than heterosexuals really they both love one person and just want to be able to be accepted. But, sadly homosexuals can not be accepted because of the staggering amount of people that bash on them and send hate in their direction. Just a final thought it's straight people that bring gay people into the world.

Title: Gay marriage should be illegal. Content: It seems as if my opponent isn't going to post any arguments. Therefore, I'm just going to recycle an old argument. It isn't that great, but it is enough to lead me to victory.Argument #1: Unalienable Rights In the Declaration of Independence, one of the United States’ most important documents, it states that all people have three unalienable rights; life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Hence, those rights cannot be taken away from someone. Taking away a homosexual’s right to marry violates all three of those rights. Hence, homosexual marriage should be legal in order to protect the unalienable rights of homosexuals. Argument #2: Religion Many people whom are against gay marriage make religious claims to defend their stance. However, religious arguments aren’t relevant. Part of the First Amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” So, we cannot use religion to make something illegal or legal. Therefore, this argument that those who are opposed to gay marriage make is irrelevant. Conclusion:With two important US documents, I have established not only why homosexual marriage should be legalized, but why religious viewpoints aren’t good for arguments against homosexual marriage. This has been very brief, but like I said, I’m pretty sure my opponent isn’t going to continue this debate. Resources:http://billofrightsinstitute.org...... http://en.wikipedia.org......

Title: Gay Marriage should be legal. Content: I thank Con for giving me the opportunity to argue about this topic.

Title: Gay marriage should be legalised Content: Extend.

Title: Gay marriage should be legal Content: I look forward to reading your argument.

Title: Gay Marriage should be illegal Content: gay? ewwwwwwwwww

Title: Gay marriage should be legal. Content: It doesn't have to be a benefit to be legal, and I have said nothing of it being a benefit. It is simply treating gays the same as we treat straight people. And you are correct when you say it will make a child's life harder, but so does divorce, high expectations from parents, ect. But, none of those are illegal. Every child is different, so a child's reaction may be different from another child's.

Title: Gay marriage should be legal in all 50 states. Content: You have a legitimate point, but the problem holding back the legalization of gay marriage is the nature of US law. Yes the religious community is opening their eyes to being fair to the homosexual community but the anti-homosexual community is still very large and prominent in society, regardless of the reduction of its members. Their counter argument to your statement about marriage not being their business would be something along the lines of "ISIS doesn't have our bodies, but we fight them because what they are doing is wrong". To the anti-homosexual community the act of gay marriage is wrong and against human nature. However one may feel, this is a valid and well supported argument from a theological point of view, coming from a large group of people in the eyes of the law. It is not considered blind prejudice because there is a clear possibility they are right. The gay community does; however, still pose a legitimate argument themselves. One's love should not be judged and condemned in such a way, that is also a clearly morally valid statement. Therefore if one is to look at the big picture from the US government's point of view there are two equally valid and backed moral opinions with conflicting goals trying to have their interests put into law. The nature of US law is to have both these large populations of America walk away satisfied with a law that can meet both parties' needs to the best of its ability. Legalizing gay marriage cannot do this, it leans too much towards the homosexual community, and it therefore shouldn't be put into law. Something along the lines of the compromise I listed in my previous argument can and that kind of thinking should be what is made law. Am I saying I'm the supreme judge of this? Of course not, but I believe in the concept of bringing both parties to a common ground and having them both walk away mostly satisfied. Gay marriage doesn't do this, so it shouldn't be legalized at this point in time.

Title: Should gay marriage be legal in the U.S. Content: First, my opponent claims that this is an issue of human rights, but this is not true. Society can choose to endorse certain types of sexual arrangements and give support in the form of benefits to these arrangements. Marriage was created to allow society to support heterosexual couples in procreation and society can choose not to give the same benefits to same-sex couples [1]. My opponent has yet to prove it is a human right. Second, my opponent claims that because of the phrase in the declaration of independence it means Homosexual marriage should be recognized because it pursues happiness, and was consensual. The is a perplexing comment because that phrase also mentions these rights were endowed by their creator, God, and religion often opposes not only Homosexual marriage, but homosexuality as well. Further, your rights end when they harm someone else, such as the case of Murder. You may be happier they are dead, but you violated the other person's right to life. Homosexual marriage has harms too. My opponent also mentions tax breaks, this is part of the first harm on society that taxpayers, consumers, and businesses would be forced to subsidize homosexual relationships. Second, Freedom of conscience and religious liberty would be threatened. We have seen this happen already in many states that decided to recognize such marriages, such as photographers in New Mexico, or catholic adoption agencies. Also, Fewer children would be raised by a married mother and father. Many sociological studies show that a married mother an father are the best environment for children [2][3]. The biggest losers here are children. I hope that my opponent will respond to all criticism previous and current in the next round. Sources[1] . http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com...[2] . http://www.familystructurestudies.com...[3] . http://www.lifesitenews.com...

Title: Should gay marriage be legal in all states Content: Extend

Title: Resolved: Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized Content: This is gay.

Title: Gay marriage should be legal in the us Content: banning gay marriage is a violation of the equal rights clause in the 14th amendment.

Title: Gay Marriage Content: Gay marriage without a shadow of a doubt should be completely legalized. It is unfair and unjust to say two people who care about each other can't do whatever they want with their relationship within the confines of the law. If something that has no negative effect on an innocent party, especially any effect at all, then it should be legal; gay marriage should be legal because what two consenting adults agree to spend their time doing, especially if it's none of your business, shouldn't be punished. One of the only lasting anti-gay marriage debates left out there is the bible, which all conservatives love to point at, however to let a book of religion guide the way we run our government, that, my sir, is the merging of church and state. To merge the separation of church and state is to step on the toes of our founding fathers, spit in their face, and raise you middle finger to them. That is to say, merging of church and state, is a foolish, fascist idea and cancels every point that our American ancestors tried to make; without ideas like the separation of church and state, what was the point of Revolution? To welcome an idea like merging church and state and then call yourself American is an insult to our fathers and an insult to me, and that is why I hate Republicans. Then, of course, there are a few people that are anti-gay marriage and have the argument that it is "publicly disturbing and gross" and to that I say, "who cares? It isn't illegal for a person to kiss or hold hands with another straight person in public, why not gay people?" gay people are grossed out by your heterosexuality, and even though I'm heterosexual, sometimes I am too, when you have one of those annoying, cutesy couples near you in public. Some people, though, are worried about the children. Out of all the arguments against gay marriage, this is the best one, but it isn't seen much and it still isn't very good. Some say children need a man and a woman for optimal raising of child. Then why isn't divorce illegal? And if divorce was illegal, would it really be any better for a child to be raised by constantly bickering parents who hate each other? From a guy who was raised by a single mother, I know there are far more factors than "are the parents gay or not?" in the raising of a child. Thank you for your time.

Title: gay marriage should be legal Content: I had intended to sit in the background observing for the rest of my debate.org career ever since my account was sabotaged by vote bombers, but I am feeling rather ambitious this morning. Let us hope the ambition carries throughout all five rounds. Having said that, thank you for the challenge. this is truly an interesting topic, and, as you might have noticed if you took the time to examine my account, I have debated it many time. Let us begin. You begin by claiming that it is unfair that gays should not be able to marry, and you say that we are discriminating based on their homosexual lifestyle. The fact of the matter, like it or not, is that it is not yet legal in most places. Law, in most places, defines marraige as one man and one woman, meaning that homosexual marraige is not included. These laws have been such since the days of our founding fathers, who in fact would put homosexuals to death simply for being homosexual. They took it so seriously because, frankly, they saw homosexuality for what it is: a perversion of nature. People are not "born gay," as you might think. studies should that, while genetics plays some role in sexual orientation, there is by no means any "master gene" that determines you sexuality, and ultimately, it is the influences of the enviornment around you, and your choice. (http://www.citizenlink.org...) This link even shows proof that homosexuals don't even see their sexuality as fixed or unchangable, but rather as a very changable thing. Having said this, my point is theis: why should we change the writen laws of marraige for a what was once considered a perversion of nature, not to mention, what is even today considered to be a severe minority? I looked over too many sites to reference, but summing them all up, the percentages of homosexuals in the population is said to be between 1% and 25%, the average of all the sites I looked at falling at about 15%-16%. There are a lot of people in the world, and we are bending to redefine laws based on this small of a minority? What gets me is that in our culture (the American culture), marraige is of less and less value. More and more poeple are settling to be boyfriend and girlfriend until they decide they are sick of eachother and want to move on. If our culture has such a low view of marraige, and gays are begging to be accepted into our culture, why even bother asking for the rights? They don't need marital rights to be considered normal. Have you considered that it is widely accepted that homosexuality is one of the reasons for the fall of Rome? (http://www.utexas.edu...) (http://www.freerepublic.com...) Notice how many of these criteria for the fall of the Roman empire fit for our nation, including homosexuality. it is among the negative effects on a nation. Thanks! Renzzy

Title: Gay marriage should be legalized In the United States Content: Homosexuals should not get married based on religious reasons."At first my opponent states that the Bible is against gay sex, but let's all be serious here. You get married and you have sex" People can get married for non sex related reasons. Homosexuality isn't purely a form of lust, it's a form of love. My opponent confirms that he is arguing that gay sex should be illegal. The odd thing in this is, he seems to think that gay marriage should be illegal because of gay sex, yet he supports civil unions. He's cherry picking information by claiming that married couples will have sex and not realizing people in civil unions will likely have sex as well. His argument can be used against him. Even if it couldn't, I've already shown how religion can have no effect on laws."Marriage is in other religions as well. Such as Islam and Judaism. In Islam they also condemn homosexual marriage"The number of religions who are against it doesn't matter. Religion can't have an effect on laws as I said last round."Well Ladies and gents it simple shows that the federal government cannot make people do things that can harm or interfere with their religion and that means Gay Marriage is now Unconstitutional"I'm not sure where my opponent gets the idea that this somehow makes it un-constitutional. Legalizing gay marriage wouldn't force someone in a company to do something against their religion.Secondly,, if we're going off of supreme court rulings, the supreme court has ruled multiple times that marriage is a fundamental right. http://m.huffpost.com..."Since Marriage is actually an industry, because you can make a profit from it, that means gay marriage is illegal under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act."The Supreme Court ruled that you can't force a company to do something against their religion. This isn't to say that all things that may conflict with someone's religion is illegal... This also doesn't connect with gay marriage. Legalizing gay marriage wouldn't force companies to have sex with someone of the same gender. So my opponents argument here seems to be this:P1: The Supreme Court ruled that you cannot force companies to do something against their religion.P2: Gay marriage is technically an industry.C: Gay marriage should be illegal.The premise that he has to prove for this argument to work is: "Gay marriage forces companies to do something against their religion". He hasn't mentioned it nor has he proven this premise. I also want to point out that we can't say that providing benefits to gay couples is against people's religion, because the examples my opponent has brought up seems to be against gay sex, not marriage.Contention 3: Civil Unions"My opponent brings up New Jersey, but he fails to bring to light how I proved last round that Civil Unions do work and Illinois is a huge example"I had said that civil unions don't work in many states and we need marriage to gave gays equal rights was the rebuttal I gave, yet Con is not responding to this, and is instead pointing out that they work in some states. Regardless of whether they work in some, others need gay marriage legalized to provide equality."He also drops the fact that many more people support Civil Unions compared to Gay Marriage. Heck, even more liberals support Civil Unions than Gay Marriage. Also, look to see how Collage grads support Civil Unions 21% more than Gay Marriage legalization. (charts above as source)"This is an appeal to popularity fallacy... The statistics also have been outdated, as fifty percent of Americans say the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of equal protection gives gays the right to marry, while 41 percent say it does not, according to a poll recently taken at march 5th 2014. The remaining 9 percent had no opinion either way.http://www.washingtonpost.com...Financial gain from Gay Marriage"This was my opponent's own contention that he brought up in his own case, but failed to bring it up last round. This is a dropped argument and you can obviously see that states make more gains from the legalization of Civil Unions then from the legalization of Gay Marriage that I have brought up in my last round"I'm not sure how my opponent reaches this conclusion. I dropped the argument after realizing that both civil unions and gay marriage can give an economic benefit, and that the difference between the money gained is so small that it wouldn't be worth arguing about. My opponent said that civil unions give money as well, which I agree with, but that doesn't mean that civil unions would give off more money. Saying "This also has a financial gain" doesn't mean that it has a bigger impact. We can't really compare them on anyway, as there's to many factors we need to put into it. Population, current financial state, etc. My opponents arguments have all been completely refuted, while my argument that gays deserve the same rights still stands. Vote Pro.Make good choices.

Title: Gay marriage should be legal. Content: I have some extremely good points, and I welcome anyone who accepts this challenge.

Title: Gay marriage Content: Gay marriage should be legalized.

Title: Homosexual Marriage Should Be Allowed Content: Under the 14th Amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Homosexuals are abridged the privilege(or right) of marriage. By making civil marriage (churches can do what they please, but this is when the government gives you your marriage license) unavailable to homosexuals the government is showing a blatant preference of one group over another, and this is entirely unconstitutional. If you don't want gays to be legally 'married' than neither should heterosexuals. The same term (civil union, whatever) with same legalities must be shared between the two 'types' of marriage in the legal field.

Title: Gay marriage should be legal. Content: Gay marriage should be legal. There is no valid reason homosexuals shouldn't have the same rights as as any other citizen of the United States.

Title: Gay marriage should be legalised. Content: the second round is opening the third is details and the last is conclusion. I will not tolerate any disregard for Homosexuals feeling or any other sort of abuse towards homosexuality. This argument is only to put across opinions that will not be taken offensively. Good Luck

Title: Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized Content: By two people marrying one another, whether straight or gay, it does not take away from the idea of marriage. Marriage is a celebration of the uniting of two people that are in love. We should not discriminate based on one's sexual orientation. Yes, I see where these drastic cases of people wanting to marry within their family or to animals may come about. However, these cases are very unlikely and the likelihood of them coming up isn't high. Yes, the idea of creating a law that defines marriage may have to be put into place. However, it's wrong to say that two people who are deeply in love and have been together for years should not be together. First off, people in gay relationships according to studies, stay together just as long if not more than straight couples. However, compared to straight couples, they are not treated as if they have any rights as their partner. If one of the persons in a homosexual relationship is in the hospital and needs medical attention, their partner isn't allowed to make any decisions for them despite that they have been together for ten years, for example. If they are in critical care, they can't even go upstairs to see them because they aren't family members. That is absolutely absurd! That is heart wrenching to these people because they are given no respect or recognition of being in a long-term stable relationship. This also applies to them when it comes to receiving their social security and pensions. It is highly unfair because they completely deserve it and it's unfair for them. Second, gay couples take away from a traditional pro-creative couple or family because many gay couples have adopted children and the children have grown up to be great individuals and not necessarily turn out to be homosexual themselves. It should not matter that they cannot procreate a child themselves physically. It is wrong to say that just because traditional families in the past were a certain way and that we should keep it the same. Our world is constantly evolving and I see no reason why gay marriage should not be universally allowed and accepted as a new traditional type of family as well. My opponent makes very valid points to validate their case. However, he attacks the issue in a manner that is more against gay marriage because of their lack of being able to produce their own offspring and marriage is a legal joining of two people, however, who are we to say that it must be between a man and a woman? Procreation does not have to only take place in a marriage. In society, many couples procreate out of wedlock. If gay marriage is legalized, it will in no way slow down the progression of our country economically.

Title: Gay marriage should be illegal! Content: I think my opponent isn’t going to post any arguments, so I’ll make this round brief. I will have one contention and one rebuttal. Argument #1: Unalienable Rights In the Declaration of Independence, one of the United States’ most important documents, it states that all people have three unalienable rights; life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Hence, those rights cannot be taken away from someone. Taking away a homosexual’s right to marry violates all three of those rights. Hence, homosexual marriage should be legal in order to protect the unalienable rights of homosexuals. Rebuttal #1: Religion My opponent made a religious claim to defend his argument in the beginning of the debate. “I believe gay marriage should be illegal its inhumane and against the bible.” However, religious arguments aren’t relevant. Part of the First Amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” So, we cannot use religion to make something illegal or legal. Therefore, this argument that my opponent uses is irrelevant. Conclusion: With two important US documents, I have established not only why homosexual marriage should be legalized, but why religious viewpoints aren’t good for arguments against homosexual marriage. This has been very brief, but like I said, I’m pretty sure my opponent isn’t going to continue this debate. Resources: http://billofrightsinstitute.org... http://en.wikipedia.org...

Title: Should same sex marriage be legal? Yes or no. Content: Hello there my friend. Good luck on this debate. :) IntroductionBefore we begin, I'd like to say that I in no way at all am against homosexuality as a concept. Some of my best friends are gay, some of my favorite musicians and actors are gay, Et cetera, Et cetera. I am also in no way against homosexual individuals being together. However, The subject of marriage is a different one. Today in this debate I contend that gay marriage is, On whole, Not allowable in society and thus should not be legal. Contention I: Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman This argument is constantly dropped by conservatives everywhere, But there's meaning behind it. Marriage, Before the times of Judaism and Christianity, Was viewed as a civil union for the benefit of the man, But these religions transformed it from something to be done for the benefit of both families into an everlasting bond of love. The tradition that marriage should be a union between man and woman is something held for millenia in the Christian faith, And as such has grown to be a traditional, Sacred aspect of Christian life. Legalizing gay marriage slanders that tradition. Again, I am not arguing against the union of gay individuals, But I am arguing that they should not be brought into wedlock. Contention II: Statistics show children need both a mother and a fatherIt has been statistically shown that children benefit extremely from having both a mother and a father. a recent study of father absence on girls found that girls who grew up apart from their biological father were much more likely to experience early puberty and a teen pregnancy than girls who spent their entire childhood in an intact family. (see sources). Another study by David Poponoe suggests that a father's pheromones influence the biological development of his daughter, That a strong marriage provides a model for girls of what to look for in a man, And gives them the confidence to resist the sexual entreaties of their boyfriends. As for gay couples, It has also been shown that mothers provide emotional security for young children. Obviously, They also give their daughters unique counsel as they confront the physical, Emotional, And social challenges associated with puberty and adolescence. As such, It should be quite clear that marital unions (Which are generally formed to raise children) should be reserved for one male and one female. ~~~~Thank you for your debate today. I will now await your response. Best wishes.

Title: Gay Marriage should be legal. Content: Good luck to my opponent whoever it maybe.

Title: Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized In America Content: I'm not saying it should be illegal for infertile couples to marry, just that there is little point as marriage is a social institution designed to ensure the best environment for raising children. You may disagree by saying it's just about love, but that's only because society presents it that way in order to ensure that people who marry stay married. I see your point about benefits of marriage, but in the UK there is a system called a 'civil partnership' which gives all the rights you mentioned, but to homosexual couples. Marriage is not needed in order to provide those benefits. Also, I accept you are right about bestiality, I know little about the subject so I would be digging a deeper hole for myself if I did continue :) 1st cousin marriage is not the incest that people worry about the most, it's legal in those 20 states because it is a grey area. However, if two people in a brother/sister relationship observe gay marriage being legalised, they have every right to protest ask: 'if homosexuals can change marriage to suit their relationships, why can't we do it?' I agree that in some cases of incest one partner can suffer emotional damage, but that can occur in any type of relationship (albeit at a lesser extent). Also, there are lots of other cases of incest where both partners suffer no emotional damage and would therefore be encouraged by gay marriage legalisation to lobby for incestuous marriage. In regards to polygamy, I disagree with it. That is probably why I fear a slippery slope going there whereas you may not. However, debating the morality of polygamy is, as you said, a debate for another day. I am not saying that there is something wrong with a masculine female of a feminine male, but they will doubtless lead a more difficult life because of it. Most men will not be attracted to masculine females, causing the latter to become bitter and possibly a misandric. There's a reason that many feminists are masculine. S feminine male will often be downtrodden by his stronger counterparts, possibly even bullied as well. The case also applies that women are generally not attracted to feminine men, which could therefore lead to bitter, entitled men. If a gay marriage will not result in children, there is no reason why they should be married in the first place instead of having a civil partnership. "When they are taught from a young age that marriage = love, what will they think when they learn that their parents are not married?" This point is irrelevant to my argument, because I am also gay people raising children. To conclude, you make a strong case for gay marriage. However, I think there are alternatives that would suit both homosexuals and conservatives. Want inheritance/tax-sharing? Have a civil partnership. The reason I am against it, aside from it being unnecessary, is that marriage is a contract that a man and a woman sign to bond them together in the eyes of society. Married couples signed this contract knowing what it was, yet if government changes it, they are changing what these married couples signed up to. It's like someone donating to a charity that supports dementia, before the charity changes to support stem cell research and continues to use your money. Finally, if the definition of an institution is changed at the whim of the people, then it loses its value. To use another analogy, what credibility would a political party have if what they stand for is constantly changed?

Title: Gay marriage should be illegal Content: new dabate

Title: Gay Marriage should be legal. Content: First, I would like to thank my opponent for the opportunity to debate this topic, as well as put forth a definition of gay marriage.Gay marriage (aka same-sex marriage): the practice of marriage between two males or two females [1].That being said, however, I have found that Con has not in any way truly defended her position that gay marriage should not be legal, and, to my perception, actually arguing her points sarcastically, showing that she isn't seriously defending her view--save for a short paragraph stating that homosexual relationships are not found in nature--ergo, are unnatural.Homosexuality is NOT UnnaturalAs I stated before, it is Con's belief that homosexual relationships do not occur in nature. However, it is estimated that 1,500 species of animals, inlcuding lions, dolphins, killer whales, and the dwarf chimpanzee, "which is one of humanity's closes relatives," [2]. So, Con's only serious argument (in my perception) is debunked, as homosexuality does in fact appear in animals which are in nature.Homosexuality is Not A Conscious DecisionWhen looking at homosexulity, it may be easy for someone to believe that a person's desires are a choice. The problem with this theory is that it is simply not true. The American Psychological Association, among many other well known organizations, has officially declared that homosexuality is not in fact a conscious choice or decision [3]. While the APA has said that homosexuality is not a choice, it has pointed out that homosexual acts clearly are not. However, whil some may view this as reason to be against gay marriage, I submit that it is not a valid reason to be against gay marriage. My reasoning behind this is the fact that expecting homosexuals to repress sexual urges (unreasonably, of course) is just as unfair as expecting heterosexuals to unreasonably repress sexual urges on simple logic grounds. It has been determined that neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality are conscious decisions. As well, Con has not given any reason as to why homosexual acts are immoral. Thus, logically speaking, one should not be expected to repress any resulting desires (within reason) whilst the other is not expected to.Marriage is a Basic RightIn Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it is stated that all men and women have the basic human right to be married and raise a family [4]. This document was written by the United Nations as a standard for all member nations (including the United States of America, which I'm assuming is the country being argued about as far as legalization,) to follow. So, according to that, the USA should allow same sex marriage.Homosexual Unions are Being Discriminated AgainstIt is true that, in the United States, currently marriage is legally defined as "only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife," [5]. But this, following the logic I laid out in "Not a Conscious Decision," can be considered unfair and discriminatory. As I stated before, heterosexual marriages are based on love and commitment as well as heterosexual acts to express that love and commitment whilst enjoying a slew of federal rights--over 1,000 [6]. However, a homosexual couple cannot express that same love and commitment whilst enjoying all of those same federal rights. In fact, only 10 of American States only provide legal recognization as high as a civil union--which provides all of the same rights as marriage, but only on a state level; federal rights are excluded. As well, even more states only have unions with some of the given rights, or don't give any rights at all [7]. And again, seeing as how Con has not provided a serious reason as to why homosexual relations are inferior to heterosexual relations, not universally providing homosexual unions with full equal rights is therefore discriminatory, unfair, and immoral.SummaryTo summarize my rebuttal and opening statements, I give you my positions contention, based on premises I have proved in my previous sections.(P1) Homosexuality is not unnatural.(P2) Homosexuality, nor its acts have been proved inferior to heterosexuality or its acts.(P3) Marriage is a basic human right.(P4) Homosexual unions are unfairly not being given full and equal rights as heterosexual unions.(C) Therefore, homosexual marriages with full and equal rights should be legalized and put into effect.References[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...[2] http://www.news-medical.net...[3] http://www.apa.org...[4] http://www.un.org... (Article 16)[5] http://www.law.cornell.edu...[6] http://www.now.org...[7] http://en.wikipedia.org...Thank you, and I await Con's response.

Title: Gay Marriage should be legal. Content: Let us view this problem through a religious lens" Why? This is about people falling in love and getting married, people who may or may not follow your religion, people who may or may not even have any detailed knowledge about what the bible says. Why force your religious rules on those that do not follow them? If your entire debate hinges on this then I fear my boredom will return swiftly. "The goal of sex is primarily for reproduction, so obviously a relationship that IS homosexual is a destructive one." People have been using contraceptives for a good long time now and it doesn't seem to have done much harm. "Secondly, because they are taking away from the available male population, decreasing the amount of heterosexual relationships" Oh ya, Earth is really sparsely populated, why it must be AT LEAST ten feet between me and my next door neighbor, hot damn. Besides, do you honestly think that not letting gay people get married will stop them from being gay? "So this means that homosexual relationships hurt not only themselves, but everyone else as well." I'm pretty sure the pain goes away after a while if you use lube. "First of all, divorce is 1.5 times more common in same-sex marriages for men, and 3 for women. This leads to a ever-growing gash in the social community" You do realise that that statistic doesn't take into consideration the fact that since gay marriage as a concept in the US is so new that each gay marriage rates always spike when they're first legally permitted, these relationships are not as slow-built and time-hardened as heterosexual relationships, they're snap reactions, the buy one get one free of marriages. Neither are they discernible from actual "yeah ok we tried and it isn't working" relationships in the statistics but they do not accurately represent the whole of gay marriage relationships. I also notice how you overlooked the obvious, if you do not want these people to get married, then why are you saying it's bad that their divorce rate is as it is? "This means that when we start to not value the what marriage is, we lose what we have to do before we can get married. We will completely slander the meaning of marriage and soon it will be just another pointless ritual, much like eating of going to the bathroom." You let atheists get married, in addition, marriage is a symbolic thing, it's symbolism won't be lost by letting gay couples do it, if anything it's symbolism ought to increase, it will no longer be a case of "these two over here are better than you" which is a symbolism that can and has been associated with the church and it's attempts to quash gay marriage (because hey, being known as a bigot group sure is symbolic) marriage is symbolic of love and unity, love and unity that your bible and your prophet preaches near-constantly, if you are unwilling to allow that love and unity to extend to all then what good is the book? What good is the prophet? Do you honestly think that you deserve love and unity more than someone else because their beliefs are different to yours? "Second, there is good evidence that societal approval of homosexual practice may increase the incidence of homosexuality and bisexuality" Correction: There is good evidence that societal approval of homosexuality (lets not call it practice, it's not witchcraft for goodness' sake) will make people who are in the closet or in denial about their homosexuality feel better about it and be more likely to express it. "Children are very susceptible to being permanently swayed by the things around them" A fantastic example being the church. "especially homosexuality" and bigotry therein. "If homosexual marriage and acts become a norm, than homosexuality will too" Ya, Ancient Greece was felled by all the kids saying "mommy mommy, I love Patroclus!" Besides, if homosexual marriage doesn't produce kids...how on earth are the kids going to know? seriously? You think a gay guy is gonna start waving his wang at a school while screaming "I put this in Mr Smith who teaches history last night!" and people are gonna let him do it? "gay marriage," as the ultimate legal sanctioning of homosexual behavior, will bring with it a wave of intolerance toward, and attack on the civil liberties of, those who publicly express disapproval of homosexual practice" mmm, yes, I can see it now. "How dare you tell me I can't be intolerant! That's so intolerant of you!" "Finally, this one says that homosexuality, since it's already prejudiced against, this prejudice will increase with unaccepted acknowledgement of the fact. People will not accept this idea, and if the government enacts it, then people will hate the practice even more, leading to even violence and murder of anyone gay or suspected of being so. " Are you kidding? Do you not know how societal acceptance works? The number of bigots would drop. Not rise, drop. You know why? Because people would be born and grow up in a world that says "those two guys over there? They're in love, and we're cool with that" as opposed to "see those two guys over there? scum of the earth, burn them" Your logic is ancient and twisted and frankly insulting to the intellect thus far. "This will lead to violence, chaos, hate" Oh, you mean like this? http://www.mpacuk.org... Or this? http://www.thegaymanifesto.com... Or this? http://www.thegoodatheist.net... Or this? http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com... Or this? http://mmabbasi.wordpress.com... Or this? http://www.politicsdaily.com... Or this? http://freethinker.co.uk... You know I seem to recall a fairly important event in the bible, some guy climbs a mountain and has a chat with someone, then comes down the mountain full of divine inspiration and carrying two stones, and these stones were important. The man was Moses, and upon the two stones were writ the ten commandments, and one of those commandments was THOU SHALT NOT KILL. I'm going to outline precisely why I believe you are, without a shadow of a doubt, nothing more than a puppet of others when it comes to this particular issue. Gay marriage is by no means the worst thing humanity can do to itself, the fact that you failed to accurately provide any sources for your statement that homosexual divorce rates are terrible, nor did you bring to light any country or society actively ruined by gay marriage as you so often claimed, nor did you even think to consider the logic that no gay marriage does not equate to the removal of gay people from our populous. These arguments, literally every argument you used, has been used before, time and again, by the same self-righteous over-controlling morons in the church or in politics. People who were, rather ironically considering your argument, influenced by the church at a young age to believe that gay marriage was somehow a thing that they personally ought to be worried about, That them being damned according to his belief automatically meant that they did not have the right to their own beliefs because god (literally) forbid that anyone's beliefs contradict with the church, even in the pursuit of the love and peace that the church (mostly) preaches. The half-baked, illogical and ultimately hypocritical argument does nothing but list the personal wank fantasy of some total bigot with a fancy hat. Societal collapse because of "the gays", under populated countries because of "the gays", this because of "the gays", that because of "the gays", and so on and so on and so on. Why not blame world

Title: Gay marriages should be legal, (In America) regardless of cultural background Content: No. Marriage is socially aligned when it joins men and women to produce offspring that will continue the same process over and over again. Same-sex marriage can suppress the role of each individual to spread their kind because they cannot produce offspring's. Same-sex marriage is purely lust and self-indiscipline.

Title: Gay Marriage should be legal. Content: Well, I shall attempt to argue honorably and valiantly. I accept, my good madam.

Title: Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized. Content: Gay Marriage should be a legal form of marriage for the simple fact that disallowing LGBT groups to marrying is taking a right that should be theirs. I'll let you go first, as I am contending that there are no substantial legal reasons to disallow same-sex marriage, and thus it should be a right for any LGBT couple to marry.

Title: Gay Marriage should be Illegal (3) Content: Premise 1) Freedom is our defaultI agree that freedom as you put it is the default. However, I still believe that no one, including gays, have any enumerated right to marriage and the right to marry is really what you claim gays have. Marriage is a privilege, granted by the state; rights are “endowed by our Creator” of which marriage is not included. Privileges are set in law, inferred from other rights or take the form of “freedoms” as Con puts it. As a privilege, marriage can be denied based on the needs of the State. Marriage is already heavily regulated. To wit, a license must be obtained, a fee paid, and it must be legal for the participants to marry. Siblings, inanimate objects, animals, etc. are not granted this privilege. I do not claim that all of these other types of couples restricted from marrying are equivalent to homosexual couples. I only bring them up to illustrate that marriage is heavily regulated, and for good reason. The benefits mentioned in my initial argument (among possible others) garnered from this privilege should only be extended to those who would benefit the state by their union. Married partners are granted these benefits because the propagation of society is a compelling interest for the State. This is why laws tend to restrict marriage between couples unlikely to produce viable children. Sterile couples often do not know before marriage that they are infertile. And even if they did it would be cost prohibitive to require such testing of all marrying couples. Otherwise, I would argue even sterile couples should be denied marriage. Premise 2) You need a good reason to make something illegalPerhaps it doesn’t refute the premise but the premise is flawed in that gay marriage isn’t illegal as much as it’s not an allowed circumstance in most states. Let me give an example: Aliens and humans aren’t specifically banned from marriage but they wouldn’t be able to get a license either. Lack of prohibition in law doesn’t make the act illegal it just means that they would not be recognized by the state as a valid union. Conclusion)The State has a compelling reason not to allow non-reproductive couples from marrying. CA: Gay marriage provides benefits to gaysI would argue that marriage should be banned for everyone that has a “marriage of convenience” based on the benefits derived from the State making it in the State’s interest to do so. In fact, when the INS learns of such marriages they often prosecute the violators. So, yes, even in heterosexual marriages certain restrictions should and do apply. And I still believe that either homo or hetero couples that do this violate the sanctity of marriage.

Title: Gay marriage should be legal. Content: Let's continue analyzing the concept of two man/two women joining together. Now, Con has pointed out quite a few points, such as: 1) Why should we give out benefits to gay couples? Then we'd have to give out rights to any kind of relationship. No. Marital benefits are for marital benefits. The benefits they receive are from marriage. When we allow gay people to marry, two friends aren't suddenly going to demand that they get benefits. Marriage is a legal matter. When two people legally come together, that's when they receive benefits, and it will stay that way if gay people marry. Con's arguments have been based purely on what ifs and fears, such as "people would start having multiple wives, they'd be having to have benefits for friendships, etc." There is no facts proving that this could happen, and what Con is arguing is solely opinion. There is a lack of plausible evidence for anything bad coming out of same-sex marriage, and frankly, I'm exasperated to read a debate devoid of facts or evidence. I will now present my main argument: First of all, people who do not support gay marriage are in the minority. "When the Defense of Marriage Act was passed in 1996, only 25% of the American public supported same-sex marriage. Since that time, public opinion has gradually moved in the direction of greater support for same-sex marriage. An August 2010 CNN poll was the first national poll to show majority support for same-sex marriage." Other polls show that 42% percent of Americans support same-sex marriage, whilst only 28% do not. This shows, just as the Civil Rights Movement in the 1950's, that this subject has gained support and is continuing to grow. "The main areas of where gay marriage that were opposed to same-sex marriage is correlated with religious attendance, older age, Republican Party affiliation, and residence in the South and Midwest." The Republican Party and residence in the South and Midwest are predominately religious, Christian to be specific. So, generally Christians are opposed to gay marriage, with very few who are not. Christians are opposed to gay marriage, so they are trying to pass a law that stops people from getting married to the same gender. There is a rule in the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which states that there is a separation of church and state. Religious views are not supposed to have a place in politics. So, two gay people getting married does not physically harm anyone, and does not threaten to break any rules against atrocious laws such as marrying animals, polygamy, etc. So the only solid argument an opposer has is: It's a sin. The Bible says so. I'm going to jump into the important point. Christians believe that God gave them the freedom to choose. The freedom to choose to follow Him, or to not. According to them, we were given the freedom to choose whether we wanted to follow Him or not. And some people decide that they do not believe or want to follow God. No one should be forced into following a religious code that they do not believe in, hence freedom of religion. Not everyone is Christian or believes in God. God made it that way so that people could have the freedom to choose. Not everyone believes in the rules of the Bible. So not everyone should be forced to have to follow those rules if they don't believe it. I believe in doing right regardless of what I am told. People, such as Con, should think before doing what they are told regardless of what is right. I, as well as 42% of Americans, need more than just "the Bible tells me so" than to believe in a law built on prejudice and close-mindedness that the 28% of other Americans exercise. Thank you. Back to you, Con. Sources: wikipedia, cbsnews.com

Title: Gay marriage should be legalized. Content: People need to recognize the difference in between what they think is "moral" and what is legal. One of the main things that distinguishes America from many other countries is our set limitations on such things; for instance, the right to practice different religions and traditions. It does not matter if someone finds another citizens beliefs against their own. I think, even though I'm certainly NOT gay, that it is illogical to take the rights from our fellow people to marry, no mater what the relationship is. I feel it would be WRONG to ignore this fact and not fight with them. Doing such would equalize in my mind to be as wrong as standing by in times of crises; such as, the Holocaust or slavery.

Title: Gay Marriage Should Be Made Legal Worldwide Content: You see the problem with thinking on the morality or justice of the situation is that it is ones opinion you think it is moral and just yet I think the opposite because it is against my beliefs and unnatural in nature. So what it comes down to is the opinion of that particular country .

Title: Homosexual marriage should be legal nation-wide in the USA. Content: First, Homosexual couples can not create children. There is no child that has a genetic code from only one sex. Second, children do better with their biblical parents, which should, and is promoted with traditional marriage [1]. Further, marriage is a privilege, not a right, and it does not meet the requirements of the 1964 civil rights act [2]. Also, my opponent's reasoning could be used to defend polygamy, incest, or child marriages. Sources[1] http://goo.gl...;[2] http://goo.gl...

Title: Gay Marriage Should Be Legalized. Content: Ask almost anyone on the street and they will probably agree with you that homosexual's should have the same rights as heterosexuals. Yet, once you get on the issue of marriage, more than half of the population in America is against it. This right to marriage is the last blockade for equal rights for homosexuals. I'll let my opponent go first.

Title: Gay Marriage Should Be Legal Content: I accept the challenge

Title: Gay Marriage Should Be Legal Wherever Possible Content: Thank you. First off, I'm not saying being gay should be a norm, I'm saying if you're attracted to someone of the same sex and you want to be engaged with them, there shouldn't be a law that says you can't. I don't think under population will become a problem since the whole population is still made up of mostly heterosexual people and we'll (hopefully) still have our reproductive organs, so if times become desperate we could make up a time for 'breeding'. Besides, there is a very minute group of people who are gay or bi, so it shouldn't be a big deal executing laws that stop them from engaging. Having such laws just welcomes more hate. Lastly, homosexuals aren't doing anything harmful, immoral, or wrongful, so I really can't see why we can't banish rules that prevent people from marrying who they want.

Title: Gay marriage should be legal. Content: I've looked through your profile, and noticed that the only way in which I disagree with you is through gay marriage. I am personally very much in favour of this. However, as I saw, you are against it. Therefore, I would like to hear why this is.

Title: Gay Marriage should be legalized. Content: "However it's not, thus it is representative"I am not implying that the data is not representative; I am simply saying that the data could be flawed considering certain variables:1) People lie.2) The questionnaire may contain information that the sampled group does not know, as well as biased questions.3) We know nothing about the sampled group. This is very important because certain areas and certain races vary (http://www.frc.org......)"[...]homosexual parent and experiencing negative outcomes does not automatically prove that having a homosexual parent is what caused the negative outcomes--other factors could be at work."Furthermore, gay couples already know the risks involved with adoption. We are not debating if it is moral or not; we are debating if it should be legal:Let's pretend that all the states ban same sex marriage in a week:Those who are already married face problems:1) What happens to them in a week?2) What about their adopted child?Those who want to marry also face problems:1) What do we do?2) Do we cancel any plans that take effect after a week? (eg marriage, honeymoon, adoption, etc)The government faces problems:1) How do we tell who is already married and who isn't?2) How do we enforce the one week limit?Seeing how already 33 states legalized same sex marriage(http://www.freedomtomarry.org......), for the other states to not, would create interstate complications and discrimination. "[...] it is only discrimination in the same way that an insurance company discriminates if they decide not to issue life insurance to an individual with a terminal illness."No it isn't. In the situation I just gave (above), it would be like an insurance company not allowing service to one person while another insurance company allows service. That is the definition of discrimination... (http://dictionary.reference.com...)"Thus, gay marriage is not ok with the bible. Thus forcing Christian institutions to perform gay marriage ceremonies is ethically wrong as it is against their beliefs. My argument thus holds."http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com...https://answers.yahoo.com...You don't need a Church/religious institute to marry you. A justice of the peace is acceptable and binding before God (if you believe in a God). Why should gay marriage not be legalized? It only affects Christians. Not everyone is religious...