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

Gay Marriage Should Not Be Legalized In The United States

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/8/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,797 times Debate No: 86236
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (34)
Votes (1)




Just to clarify, I am arguing that gay marriage should not be legalized in the US.

A political context is necessary for this debate, since we are debating the governance of this issue.


Gay marriage is actually already legalized. In all 50 states. Maybe you mean gay marriage shouldn't have been legalized, or it should be delegalized. Either issue I'm comfortable with discussing.

I look forward to your opening arguments.
Debate Round No. 1


Well first I'd like to reference the comments in this debate as an example of one very large problem we have, here, in America.

People seem to feel that the government needs to make a decision on this, one way or another. People seem to feel that the government needs to make decisions on a lot of things that they really shouldn't be involved in at all. Government involvement should be viewed as a last resort; governance always comes with an inherent breach of freedom under threat, whether it's an immediate threat of force or muddled through fines or taxation. The idea that government should be any part of marriage is completely ludicrous.

All law comes at the cost of freedom, in some way or another. To legalize gay marriage, an over-step of government power is unavoidable. The government would be required to take an active role in providing a means for gay people to get married.

I see this happening, generally, in two ways:
Make it illegal for anyone, vested with the right to marry two individuals, to deny them the "right" to be married based on orientation.
This will obviously be a huge problem for religious figures.
Provide government endorsed alternatives that exclude employment of people based on their religion.
This will mean government jobs that require an act that infringe heavily on a very commonly held religious/moral belief. It always means taxation to provide this regulation and enforcement.

I think it's entirely unnecessary to create these conflicts. I would propose that any legislation, regardless of whether it's making gay marriage legal or illegal, is going to cause issues.

I believe that the government should have absolutely nothing to due with marriage. Any legislation concerning marriage should be reformed.

This would leave the definition of marriage up to the individual, the way that it should be.
Gay people who want to get married may have trouble finding a priest to do it, but it's not the government's place to impose their will upon a priest or anyone else when it comes to something like marriage.
The stigma about homosexuality is beginning to dissipate in this nation. A great wealth of entrepreneurs are ready to capitalize on the market of gay marriage. Let people do what they want, and don't infringe upon the rights of prejudice people to pander to the desires of gay people. There's just no need to provide any couple with a legal right to be married. Providing marriage as a legal right requires taxation of people who will never get married. It requires the government to define marriage. It requires government workers to quit if their religion does not allow them to participate in a gay marriage.

But again, the most important question here, is why are their any government workers dealing with marriage at all?

It's completely asinine, and it all needs to stop.


I'm honestly a bit confused on your stance. You seem to be okay with gay people getting married, but insist on the government... not allowing that? The title of this debate suggest that you think the government shouldn't allow gay people to be legally recognized as married, as that is what it means for gay marriage to be legalized. Your argument however seems to say you don't think the government should force religious organizations to be priests at gay weddings.

If churches are issuing marriage licenses for the state then they have to obey the law. Maybe a church shouldn't have to host a gay wedding if they are insistent upon being backwards and bigoted in their ways, but if you work for the state, or perform any function for the state, you must follow the state's rules. I'm sorry if I am not very sympathetic to people whining that they can no longer deny people their fundamental rights as human beings, which the Supreme Court has ruled marriage as (1).

I'm not sure what you mean by "government endorsed alternatives that exclude employment of people based on their religion." You do know people are already hired to issue marriage licenses to straight people, right? Like, you don't have to hire more people. You use the same people issuing straight marriage licenses to also issue the gay ones. And if a person has a problem respecting the law, then they shouldn't have a job to enforce it.

You do know that the court decision last June wasn't just a formality, right? Like people weren't just whining that the bigots wouldn't marry them; in many states, people couldn't get married to their same sex partners. Obviously there's an issue there, and the government needed to address the legality of same-sex marriage. As it turns out, when there's an issue about the Constitution affecting the majority of the nation, somebody has to sort that out. Otherwise, we'd still be in this odd limbo where some states wouldn't recognize state-issued marriage licenses.

Yeah, I'm all for just letting people decide what marriage means but marriage isn't just a formality either. There are tax benefits to tying the knot. If you are some body's spouse, you have control over medical procedures if your spouse is unconscious. You can sue for wrongful death of a spouse. If you're married, you can inherit an estate without taxes, and if they have no will, you can inherit it anyway (all source 2).

In retrospect, it seems like you want to completely delegalize marriage completely. All marriages. As in, nobody is married in the eyes of the state. Which, I don't know about you, seems like a much more expensive process than just... allowing gay people to do something straight people already can. I mean, it's been legal for 8 months now and the country hasn't burned. I've yet to see any gay caused riots in the streets. The Constitution hasn't been shredded to pieces as roving Straight-Hunting death squads target the last few God-fearing patriots of this once great land.

Sorry. That got away from me for a bit there. Anyway, see you next round.

Debate Round No. 2


My stance does seem a bit confusing, I'm sure, to anyone who's grown up hearing year-after-year political debates on gay marriage. It's been a great moot topic for the last few decades.

My stance is exactly as I said: I believe that the government should have absolutely nothing to do with marriage. Any legislation concerning marriage should be reformed.

I say this with an understanding of the government's current involvement in marriage. Their current involvement is exactly what makes it such a problem to "legalize" gay marriage. It's not as simple as saying gay people can get married. There's an entire system of governance surrounding marriage that never should have existed in the first place, and it was all developed at a time when most people shared one definition of marriage: a prejudiced and bigoted one, in your opinion.

And as it happens, I share your opinion on that. I believe that it is bigoted and prejudice to define marriage as something to only be shared between a man and woman. I'm putting that aside, however, and aiming to find a solution that keeps people from infringing upon each other's rights.

You cite the supreme court ruling about the 14th amendment of the constitution providing a legal "right" for gay marriage. Well, I'm afraid that's not entirely correct. The 14th amendment does not say anything about marriage at all, nor should it.
The 14th amendment simply prevents the government from making gay marriage illegal, as it should.

The 14th is an amendment that restricts government. It requires the government to provide the people with "equal protection of the laws." "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

Now, because of about a century of misguided laws that also infringe upon the 14th amendment by granting extra-constitutional rights to people who are married, we're dealing with some backlash. The nation's definition of "marriage" has largely changed since the enactment of all this legislation we've introduced concerning it.

Like you said, there are benefits to tying the knot. Tax benefits; people who aren't married will often pay more into the tax-pool than married people. This seems great, until you look at it from the perspective of a person who doesn't want to get married. Imagine if we gave tax breaks to white people.

Yes, many of these additions seem benign in nature, but that's only because they don't disagree with most peoples' sensibilities. Most people don't see these conflicts because the conflicts don't adversely effect them. This is the kind of reasoning that resulted in gay marriage being illegal in the first place. You said "I mean, it's been legal for 8 months now and the country hasn't burned. I've yet to see any gay caused riots in the streets." I'm sure the same type of thing was said when gay marriage was declared illegal. Lack of protest doesn't change the fact that the legislation is unconstitutional. Gauging backlash as a benchmark of success for legislation is extremely short-sighted.

As an individual who doesn't intend to get married, I disagree with the government providing tax exemptions to people who do. The 14th amendment is supposed to protect me from being subject to law based on my marital status. Tax inequality was a big issue for gay people, not so long ago; why shouldn't it be an issue for people like me? The constitutions is about inalienable human rights, not about the rights of groups that are artificially defined by race, gender, marital status, or sexual orientation. This is the problem with letting government define us in any way other than as individuals. This is the problem with governance of our marital status.

Again, I insist that the government need not be involved. Let people define marriage as they see fit. Let them write their wills as they see fit. Let people create their own documents to decide who manages their medical treatment. When conflicts arise, let criminal charges be decided in a court or law by a jury of your peers. That's how we retain freedom in this country. Do it to prevent the government from becoming so involved that it's unable to recognize when it's involvement is unconstitutional. Do it to prevent the government from believing it has the authority to make things like gay marriage illegal.

Anyway, I've tried my best to articulate the reasons that accepting government authority on this matter is the same mistake that resulted in gay marriage becoming illegal. The benefits and conveniences are abysmal, especially when you compare them to the consequences of allowing this kind of logic to determine law.

Skew it whichever way you like. Government authority has no place when it comes to marriage.


I'm still confused as to what you think we're debating. The title suggests you don't think the government should allow gay people to be married. But your argument is that nobody should be allowed to be married, or that the benefits shouldn't exist. That's a completely different issue than allowing gay people to do something that straight people can.

Your argument is confusing because there's just a lot wrong and I'm not sure where to start. If we're debating whether or not tax benefits should be given to married couples, then I'd probably agree with you. If we're debating whether or not church officials should be forced to host gay weddings, I'd probably agree with you as long as you realize that if they're performing a function for the state then they have to adhere to state rules. I mean, churches have a tax exemption of their own so I'm not feeling all that bad for them.

You speak of gay marriage like it hasn't been legalized. That's false. Because it has been legalized. The Supreme Court ruled on this issue in June, mate.

It actually is just as simple as saying gay people can get married. You point out the religious people who might have a problem with it, but there were probably people who didn't want to issue marriage licenses to inter-racial marriages. If they are receiving a pay check from the government, they have to actually do the work.

What do you think the government's role in marriage is right now? How does that role make it difficult to allow gay people to be married? And if it is so difficult, why did it already happen?

Not allowing gay people to get married infringes on people's rights, mate. Not being able to oppress and bully people may be a right in your mind, but I think that 'freedom' is less important than others.

Then you go on to say the Supreme Court, a body of judges whose sole purpose is to make rulings about the Constitution, was wrong when they ruled on the Constitution. The SC has made mistakes in the past, sure, but their word is law. Then you say that 14th amendment has nothing to do with marriage, except well, then you say that it kind of does, because it can't make gay marriage illegal. So if we can't make gay marriage legal, and we can't make it illegal, what do we do? Something can't be both illegal and legal mate. That's just not how the law works. If I go with my husband to get a marriage license, something has to happen. Either I'm denied that license or I'm given it.

Marriage has always been in flux, and it has never just been a formality. It's been a political tool, a diplomatic bargaining chip, a way to climb the social ladder. Now, it's a way to bring two people closer together legally. Say we do remove all benefits of marriage, what do we do when a spouse requires surgery but they need a family member's permission? Who gets the say in that situation if marriage doesn't mean anything?

This isn't a debate on whether marriage should come with tax benefits, mate.

Actually, there were riots when gay marriage was illegal. People protested because their rights were being infringed upon, and it wasn't their rights to treats others as lesser either. Ever heard of Stonewall?

I may be wrong about this but no new legislation was introduced. Gay people just became a part of an already established institution. The SC didn't write a bill and push it through Congress.

If you have a problem with tax exemptions to married people I can sympathize, but I don't understand what that has to do with gay marriage. The SC ruling was because people weren't treated equally due to their sexual orientation. I mean I feel for you, with this whole tax exemption thing, but I don't really think it belongs up there with the Civil Rights Movement or the Gay Rights Movement.

Marriage is a contract with the government, mate. They have to be involved with it. People were already defining marriage as they saw fit. The problem was that one group forced the others to conform to their definition, at their expense. Conservative Christians aren't hurt by gay marriage. Gay people were hurt when they were told their relationships weren't legitimate and couldn't be considered equal to straight ones.

What if somebody doesn't write their will, though? Not everybody has one. I doubt you do. What happens when you die? Do you have all this documentation written out? And what if somebody else doesn't?

State governments already were thinking they had the right to make gay marriage illegal. Did you chose the wrong side or something? Did you mean to be Con but accidentally chose Pro?

Government does have authority when it comes to marriage, whether you view that as fortunate or not.
Debate Round No. 3
34 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by raskuseal 2 years ago
ha ha. well played, crepuscularkid. I haven't actually seen that "film", as I read about it on Wikipedia. I know it's not always an accurate source, but at least they've got useable references. Personally, I hate furries and the like, so I had, and have, never wanted to see that filthy cartoon.
Posted by Linkstart 2 years ago
Posted by crepuscularkid 2 years ago
I think the real question is how much of the video raskuseal watched.
Posted by Linkstart 2 years ago
It makes you look like a fool. You have nothing to say so you talk about his username.
Posted by raskuseal 2 years ago
Annnnnnnnd this makes me a fool, how exactly?
Posted by Linkstart 2 years ago
No. You have nothing to say so you start talking about his profile picture.
Posted by raskuseal 2 years ago
How? Is this about my opinions and beliefs of gays, or fritz or what?
Posted by Linkstart 2 years ago
raskuseal you are making a fool of yourself.
Posted by crepuscularkid 2 years ago
If your problem is with the institution of marriage as a whole then that should have been the debate topic. A debate titled "Gay marriage shouldn't be legalized" targets gay people specifically. At best you are genuinely ignorant as to how pointing out gay people specifically is discriminatory. At worst, you're a bigot hiding behind cheap debating tactics to cover this. In all likelihood, you're probably just inept at communicating ideas effeciently and too enamored with your *brilliant mind* to see this.

Please, the debate is over. It's really cute how you're trying to clarify your position after the fact but I don't want to keep saying the same things over and over.
Posted by NuckaBlitz 2 years ago
The question regarding the legality of gay marriage should absolutely not be separate from the question of government authority concerning the institution of marriage.

The authority to make any judgement concerning marriage is going to precede the legal authority to define it. Upon granting itself the authority to define marriage, the government didn't waste much time turning that authority into a way of unequal taxation of single men and particularity women who already were facing prejudice financial barriers to independence if they chose a life outside of the confines of the social norm in marriage. Then you've got things like "Head and Master" laws which were a set of American property laws that permitted a husband to have final say regarding all household decisions and jointly owned property without his wife's knowledge or consent. This law was in practice in the US until as late as 1979.

The government has a long history of this sort of thing. You'll win the debate because I didn't leave myself enough time to present my case properly.. But you're still wrong.

The government doesn't have the constitutional authority to define marriage. They can't pass judgement on gay marriage at all. This legalization is as abhorrent as their decision to make gay marriage illegal in the first place because it's a continuation of the same authoritarian attitude that caused this problem in the first place.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by zman8881 2 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 Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro debated a topic different than the proposed. Con had more convincing arguments as they pertained to the original topic.