Instigator / Con
Points: 1

Should Gay Marriage be fully legalized across the globe


The voting period has ended

After 2 votes the winner is ...
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Time for argument
One day
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
One week
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Characters per argument
Contender / Pro
Points: 2
This is mainly for fun, don't get offended
Round 1
Ty for accepting, I will be negating the topic and say Gay Marriage shouldn't be fully legalized.

You can go first
Thank you Random_Person36 for this debate! I'm looking forward! Before I begin, I would like to define a few key terms of the resolution:

Should: Denotes moral obligation
Gay marriage: the marriage of a same-sex couple, entered into in a civil or religious ceremony.
Legalized: Allowed by law

Thus it is my burden that all the countries in the world ought to recognize and legalize same gender marriage.

Value Premise: Human rights and dignity

The criterion I weigh for weighing this premise is the recognition that marriage is a fundamental human right and to deny marriage to a class of people is unjust. This leads me to my first contention.

Contention 1: Marriage is a fundamental right

What is marriage? Wikipedia defines marriage as "a socially or ritually recognised union between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between those spouses, as well as between them and any resulting biological or adopted children and affinity (in-laws and other family through marriage). This is a foundational right that was enshrined by international law in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, Article 16:

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Why is this right so important? It is important for several reasons. First most nations have special benefits and rights that only apply to people who are married. For example, people who are married often get tax benefits; second, marriage affirms a special union and special bond that the two people have; third, it helps build a strong foundation for a family.

Denying this vital and fundamental right to same gender couples is unjust.

Contention 2: Homosexuality is not a choice

This is connected to my first premise. One does not decide to be gay any more than they decide to be straight. Science has shown that it is impossible to change your sexual orientation no matter how much you want to.

Now we must ask ourselves: if homosexuality is not a choice, then shouldn't homosexual couples deserve the same recognition that straight couples do?


I can summarize my arguments as this:

Premise 1: We ought to uphold human dignity and values
Premise 2: Recognizing same-gender marriage is upholding those values
Conclusion: Therefore one ought to recognize and legalize same gender marriage.

Over to you!

Round 2
I would like to state beforehand that I don't hate the gay community, I'm just disagreeing with them to be fully legalized on Earth. would also say that I'm 100% straight and everything I say will still be straight because I now will say "no homo".

Rebuttal: Uh, I disagree with your second contention. I'd say that it is a choice, which is defined by Google as an "act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities." In this article it says that besides being a direct choice like "damn I like Trump, I'm going to be gay for him" (said no one ever, and never will) it can also be a realization. Ex: Mike Pence woke up in the morning and saw trump eating KFC, he falls in love with one of the chickens. So he asked Trump if he can get it, but Trump said: "Nah bro, that's gay." This suddenly makes Mike Pence realize he is gay but he then just said ok then I won't be gay anymore. The End. My weird point here is basically that people can decide if they want to continue to be gay or not it's a choice or realization that can lead to a choice.

Contention 1: It will be too hard for this to be accomplished.
As we all know, most people are straight and not gay. The entire LGBT community is only a tiny portion of the world population, so it's very hard for them to change anything; especially in countries like China and North Korea. In fact, only 27/195 countries (maybe a few more or less) has it fully legalized. The whole continent of Asia except for Taiwan is against it. Same for Africa, only one country has it fully legalized, that's it. The strongest opposition to gay marriage is within the Muslim countries, maybe they find it offensive. Forcing these countries to change their laws would be impossible without threats. Maybe gay marriage is a human right, but if you ask Kim Jon Un, what will he say? Rivals of the countries who fully legalized it are very powerful especially if they all work together, what is UN going to do? More sanctions? Yeah, that would do it. -_- 

Contention 2: It's not good for the Children. This article mainly talks about the side effects of gay marriage on Children. My favorite arguments made in here is that it is the best for Children to have both a fatherly and motherly figure in their lives and it will confuse the kids and might lead them to gender disorders. Quote from Judith Stacey: "
a significantly greater proportion of young adult children raised by lesbian mothers than those raised by heterosexual mothers ... reported having a homoerotic relationship."  
also, if two gay dudes had a daughter and she got problems that need a mother to solve, they won't be able to help or at least it will be more difficult for them to help.

I think I'm finished I'm lazy so I'm not really putting in too much effort.

Thank you for a fun debate! Unfortunately two round debates are hard to keep even. I asked in the comment section whether or not I should waive this round and he said that he didn't care. As such I will dive right in!

---> Con's Case <---

Re Con 1: It'll be too hard to accomplish

The only evidence con cites here is that homosexuality is a minority of the population? So what? That makes my case stronger. The value premise of my argument is on the value of human dignity. My value premise is left untouched and unaccounted for.

Con's arguments about Islamic countries and Kim Jong-un are rather irrelevant. We should require countries to uphold the UN Declaration of Human Rights and recognize human dignity. The fact is these Islamic countries and Kim Jong-un are some of the worst violators of human rights. We have a moral obligation to make them begin to uphold human rights.

Con's case also has another huge hole in it: Being too hard does not mean that we shouldn't do it. Few hundred years ago it was inconceivable that slavery would be abolished, but we did it because it was our moral obligation. Was it difficult? Sure! But we are required to sometimes do difficult things.

Re Con 2: It's not good for the children

Con's only piece of evidence here is the Family Research Center, an organization that is considered to be a hate group. The scientific evidence however is clear: children reared by same-sex couples are not at a disadvantage.

The second problem with this argument is that this debate is about gay marriage, not gay adoption. I could totally concede this point and my entire case be left intact.

---> My Case <---

My value premise was that we ought to uphold human rights and dignity and that marriage is foundational to that dignity. My opponent never addresses the value premise nor does he challenge the value criteria. My opponent further does not challenge contention 1 that marriage is among those foundational rights. Please extend across the board.

It's very clear that my opponent did not even read his own source in challenging my second contention:

It’s rather careless to treat the gay community as if they are choosing their path of orientation, because what you’re implying when you do so, is that they are naturally wired to be straight but are making the conscious decision to act in direct opposition to this. You are charging them with the most profound emotional treason.
They are choosing to be the most honest, authentic versions of themselves. They are choosing to be led by the unfiltered direction of their hearts, just as you and I are. They are choosing to relent to the things that in all of our lives, never can be chosen.
Please vote pro than you very much!
--> @Random_Person36, @Virtuoso
Please let me know if you have additional questions - or if you want any more detailed critique or constructive criticism. I feel somewhat bad voting down the complexity on fiat - as it’s a technicality, and I hate voting on technicalities that both sides may not be fully aware of - but in this case I don’t think it specifically affected the outcome, and it’s worthwhile using it as a means of pointing out the issue.
--> @Ramshutu
thanks for the vote!
--> @Random_Person36
Thanks! I enjoyed the debate.
Just finished, took me some time, hope people can understand the points I'm making here and vote me. But you did well too.
--> @Random_Person36
Sounds good. Looking forward!
--> @Virtuoso
Yeah, I'm working on my thing now I went afk for 10 minutes but now I'm back and will work on it.
--> @Random_Person36
Posted! If this was a more formal debate, I would have gone more in depth and the nitty gritty, but since it's obvious you mainly want an informal and fun debate, I adjust my arguments as such!
--> @Virtuoso
I don't really care, just checking if you're actually there or not. I'll wait for ya
--> @Random_Person36
Yep! I’m working on my case now. Should be up within half hr. Do you want me to waive the second round since you are letting me go first?
--> @Virtuoso
Are u still here bro?
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Winner 1 point
Con's main argument was that it was bad for the children. However, lets say for the sake of his argument that homosexual marriages are bad for children. Wouldn't this not prohibit childless homosexual marriages?
His 2 arguments got thoroughly debunked by Pro.
Con appeared to troll with his 1st body paragraph. He stated, "Uh, I disagree with your second contention. ... So he asked Trump if he can get it, but Trump said: "Nah bro, that's gay." This suddenly makes Mike Pence realize he is gay but he then just said ok then I won't be gay anymore. The End."
Con had a better source, as he managed to find a left wing website(Huffpost) that was right wing on this issue.
Pro called Pro's site a "hate group". They were merely right of center. This is poor conduct.
I would score this 4-3 Con, but there wasn't much of a clear winner in my opinion.
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Winner 1 point
Note: this is a very short debate, and so rather hard to work out the correct way of scoring.
It is however a good old fashioned policy debate!
1.) pros opening arguments feel relatively standard, and are well explained. He explains that homosexuals who want to get married but can’t are missing our on specific rights and dignity. In a short debate, this is more than sufficient to uphold his initial burden.
2.) Con is arguing for the SQ - the first point is that it’s he’s claiming it’s a choice - with the single source cited which disagrees with his position as pointed out by pro - but the presentation of the argument is more of an assertion, and as such I don’t find there to be grounds to discard pros point.
3.) Fiat - as a point of order: in policy debates there is a concept called Fiat - where the one arguing for a policy is effectively allowed to mostly bypass practicality. The purpose of this is to make debates about the issue and substance presented and not about complexity its implementation. There are limits to this - but in this case there is not sufficient warrant to consider the difficulty presented by con.
4.) it’s bad for the children. Con cited a single source, which pro casts doubt on with his rebuttal (but I will get to see this). However even if I accept this possible downside of the issue, it’s not clear how substantive this negative is compared to the net positive pro argues in round 1.
Given this, I feel pros case is on more solid ground with the particular harms clearer than those mentioned by con.
Note: I have not included pros final round I my decision. But this has not affected the decision. Normal debate structure here generally has an even number of debate rounds each - and I am erring that even rounds are default unless otherwise specified.
If this was not a winner selection, this may have warranted a conduct violation - it is on the borderline. This is to say as a note just in case for next time.