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

Gay Marriage Legalization in the U.S.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/4/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,355 times Debate No: 59952
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (2)




I will be arguing that gay marriage should be legal in the US. First round is for acceptance only. Thanks!

P.S. I am a straight male.


I accept

Good luck to you
Debate Round No. 1


Hi, Con. Thank you for accepting the debate, and good luck. I hope nothing in this debate is personally offensive to you, I do not mean it to be so. Gay marriage, being the formal and lawful union between two people of the same sex, should be legal in the United States for the following reasons (these reasons may include rebuttals to common anti-gay arguments):

1. Marriage certified under United States law is a legal entity, not a moral or religious one. The United States is a country not based off of any religion, making arguments based of religious preference invalid in this case (for example, an argument saying "God does not want gay marriage" or "gays are sinners according to my religion" is invalid, as the United States does not regard religion and religious beliefs in lawmaking). Similarly, separation of church and state (an entity widely recognized in the United States due to the terms of the First Amendment) bans the state and state based entities (including marriage licenses issued by state) from being influenced by church based entities (including what different religious groups have to say about a state law). Therefore, religious beliefs may not influence state lawmaking decisions, as lawmakers must make decisions strictly off evidence that is not related to church.

2. In the current gay marriage situation, homosexuals are asking for a state marriage license, not a church marriage license. This can be deduced from the evidence that homosexuals want the legalization of marriage in the United States, an entity not based off religion or religious values, but rather those of state. Homosexuals do not want their marriage licenses approved by a church, but rather by the government. Therefore, the church does not need to approve of a marriage license in order for one to be created by government. Church beliefs are invalid in the making of a governmental marriage license because of this. Furthermore, the church does not need to accept a governmental marriage license as valid. The church can say, "I do not approve of this", which is perfectly legal and acceptable. Rather, gays are asking for the government to approve of their license, irrelevant of what the church has to say. Therefore, as a governmental marriage license has nothing to do with religion, one should be able to be obtained regardless of the sexes of its potential owners.

3. This point refers to Christians and some Jews: Most people who oppose the legalization of gay marriage do so because they believe that it is labeled as a sin in the book of Leviticus (part of the Torah, Pentateuch, Bible, Old Testament, etc.) However, according to the book of Leviticus, only homosexual sexual acts are prohibited. Leviticus says nothing about civil unions, marriage, or other marital benefits. Therefore, according to Leviticus, these are not prohibited. Furthermore, allowing gay marriage to be legalized is not a sin. It says nothing about this in the Bible - not even gay marriage is prohibited, only gay sexual acts. A neutral position on the subject would also be far from sinning.

4. Legalizing gay marriage will not affect you in any feasible major way whatsoever (unless, of course, you are gay and wanting to marry). Theories that allowing gay marriage will let schools start teaching children how to perform gay sex, or that laws persecuting straights will start to be passed, are simply unreasonable and absolutely false. Letting other people be happy is not bad. It is good. If you think allowing American homosexuals to marry is a sin, then let them sin - it will not affect you. If you think marriage will promote gay sexual acts that would not occur otherwise - it won't. Gay sex is not illegal in the US, and preventing gays from marrying will not stop this from occurring. If you support gay marriage legalization, or maintain a neutral position, you will not be 'sinning'. You will simply be letting others do what they want and be happy.

5. The concept that marriage is between a man and a woman is historically inaccurate. Marriage predates the Bible by far, which makes statements such as 'traditional marriage is between a man and a woman' false, as traditional marriage occurred before people started to say that it could only occur between a man and woman.

Thank you for listening to my argument.



Thank you pro. Before i start i will supply the definition of marriage

Marriage- the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

The definition of Marriage is not defined by a religious or moral definition. The definition states it is solely a bond between man and woman.


P1) Marriage is a tradition that is already weakened by high divorce rates. If one were to legalize Gay Marriage, then Marriage would become weakened as the main goal of marriage would become fulfilling adult desires rather than children desires. Divorce rate and Out of Wedlock Births are shown to be correlated with the legalization of Gay Marriage. This could result in kids growing up in deprived households and on edgy incomes instead of having all the support and supervision they need while living on a solid income.

P2) "Taxation without Representation". Gay Marriage will allow for homosexual couples to gain tax exemptions and social security benefits that are paid for by the citizens, regardless of whether they support Gay Marriage or not. The reasons for not supporting Gay Marriage could also be not religion motivated too.

P3) The costs of Gay Marriage. According to a congressional budget office study estimated the cost of extending marriage benefits to homosexual couples will cost $596 Million in mandatory spending and another $302 million in discretionary spending. This is not accounting for social security benefits and inheritance tax.

P4) Marriage is defined as a bond between a man and a woman. This bond allows for unique perspectives of both genders and can help the child in situations. However, without these unique perspectives one can expect the child to experience problems that cannot be solved by gay couples. According to various studies, girls who are raised apart from fathers are more likely to succumb to teenage pregnancy. Children that are deprived of mothers can experience a lack of emotional security.

P5) Marriage is a privilege not a right. Nowhere in the constitution does it say marriage is a right of all.

Debate Round No. 2


Dear Con,
I will now present rebuttals to your argument and offer some more arguments of my own.

You define marriage (without a source) as the 'state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law'. However, more than half of the American population disagrees with your definition, as a recent poll (Source 1) shows that around 55% of Americans support gay marriage, as opposed to 42% who don't. Note that is one of the most trustworthy and reliable poll websites in the nation. A more agreed with definition of marriage would be (Source 2 - The Merriam-Webster Dictionary):

(1) the relationship that exists between a husband and a wife
(2) a similar relationship between people of the same sex
(3) a ceremony in which two people are married to each other

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary itself recognizes the validity of gay marriage in certain situations. Your definition, being without a source, is also looked down upon by more than half of our nation's population. Let me move on to a rebuttal of your arguments.

Point 1: You state that legalizing gay marriage would increase divorce rates. However, no substantial evidence exists to support this theory, as gay marriage could also lower relative divorce rates. Please not that according to (Source 3), gay marriage divorce rates are significantly lower than those of straight marriage, sometimes being estimated at 0% to 1.8%. Furthermore, your argument that marriage would become weakened because the goal of marriage would no longer be for children desires is void, as according to my definition, as well as yours, marriage does not require the raising of children. Your next argument is simply incorrect - according to my (Source 3), gay marriage would lower divorce rates, and there is no substantial proof that 'out of wedlock births' would increase except for in Scandinavia, a region with a completely different culture and tendencies. Please notice that we are arguing about the legalization of gay marriage in America, which could have completely different reactions to the cause. As your 'birth out of wedlock' argument has no reasonable evidence that relates to our nation, you have no proof that kids would start growing up in 'deprived households and on edgy incomes'.

Point 2: Yes, the legalization of gay marriage would require all Americans to pay for the social security benefits, etc. of these couples. However, we have already certified that more than half of America's population would be willing to do this. This figure is also steadily growing, with nearly 8 in 10 young adults (the new generation) (Source 1) supporting gay marriage. Already, many people pay taxes for causes they do not believe in - this is simply part of being a citizen of our nation, which recognizes equal rights for all.

Point 3: Obviously, extending marriage benefits to gay couples would cost money. However, America should be willing always to spend money in order to give equal rights and freedoms to all of its citizens. Once more, 55% of Americans (a steadily growing figure) and nearly 80% of the new generation would support paying money for gay couples, as they support the legalization of gay marriage.

Point 4: Marriage is not solely defined as a bond between a man and a women - only your definition (without a source) defines it as so. You claim that children with out one of each gender as parents would be raised to a substandard degree, however, according to (Source 4), children raised in same-sex households do just as well from those raised by heterosexuals. All of the studies of my source consistently show that factors such as self-esteem, relationship with peers, intelligence, behavior, and gender identity were the same whether children were raised by heterosexual or homosexual parents. Most of the sources used by the source you site are far right, anti-gay establishments that are to biased to conduct a fair study.

Point 5: The Constitution, which doesn't even mention marriage, defines so as neither a privilege or a right. Therefore, your point is void.

Please use your next argument for defending your previous arguments that have been rebutted or making new ones. Good luck, and goodbye!

Source 1:
Source 2:
Source 3:
Source 4:


Redspectre forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Unfortunately, my opponent has forfeited. This is an obvious breach of conduct. I encourage him/her to post a new argument for the next round!



Redspectre forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4


My opponent has forfeited once more. This is not showing conduct. I would like to reiterate to the voters that my arguments were more convincing, and that I used more sources. I hope my opponent posts for the next round.


If we use the bible as evidence we can see that god is specifically against the idea of homosexuality. Saying it is a sin to lay with someone of the same sex. Why should we disobey god?

Is it just so a sexually deviant minority that commits rape on a daily basis should be allowed to get away with their crimes?

We need stricter laws like sodomy laws that will prevent them from ever having sex
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by missmedic 3 years ago
If your going to play the bible card, with" because god says so" you should admit that god never gives you the freedom to follow the commandments you like and neglect the rest. Nor does god tell you that you can relax the penalties he has imposed for breaking them, which is death. Extreme as that sounds that is the bible. Either you follow the bible or you don't, but you don't get to preach it if you don't follow it, because god is not a moderate. Have a nice day.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by AlternativeDavid 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct: Con forfeited many times. Sources: Con cited which shows both sides of the argument. His own sources refuted his claims. Arguments: Pro had much stronger arguments and Con's arguments were illogical and religious based. Even after Pro stated that homosexuals should get state marriage licenses and not religious ones.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 3 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff many times