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

Gay Marriage

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/1/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 484 times Debate No: 43248
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)




1st round will be for acceptance
2nd round opening argument
3rd round rebuttals
4th round closing

I will be arguing for gay marriage. Any arguement religious or not is allowed
Debate Round No. 1


Gay marriage should be legal because marriage is a civil right, separation of church and state, it will help the economy, and it trends with lower divorce rates. First off the insinuation of marriage is controlled by the government not the church. A church performs a wedding not a marriage. Nancy Cott, PhD, testified in Perry v. Schwarzenegger that "[c]ivil law has always been supreme in defining and regulating marriage" and that religious leaders are accustomed to performing marriages only because the state has given them that authority. Second marriage is a civil right that everyone should be able to enjoy straight or not. Second off marriage is a civil right. In the 1967 Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia it was confirmed that marriage is "one of the basic civil rights of man." When you deny gays the right to marry, you are denying one of their basic rights. Also our country was founded on a separation of church and state. Although many major religions look down upon gay marriage, that religious mind set should not effect gays civil rights. The legalization of gay marriage will help the economy, because of the revenue from marriage licenses and higher income taxes, the Comptroller for New York City found that legalizing gay marriage would bring $142 million to the city"s economy and $184 million to the state"s economy over three years. Lastly gay marriage tends to correlate with lower divorce rates. 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, which altered 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.


This first part is a note to Pro; beyond that I will be writing to the audience.

Thanks for the debate.
First of all, you didn"t phrase a topic beyond the broad "Gay Marriage," so from this point forward can we agree that the topic is:

Gay marriage should be a guaranteed right in the United States.

Since I clarified the topic and it"s already the 3rd Round for you, I"ll refrain from arguing about the logistics of implementing what would most likely be a Constitutional Amendment (unless you don"t mind.) I believe this topic is what you were hinting at in your opening argument. We don"t need to argue state v. federal law, because I don"t believe that"s what you wanted to discuss. We"ll simply debate the pros and cons of gay marriage in the United States.

To the Readers: I"ll begin by refuting every one of my opponents arguments (neatly summarized for you since the paragraph was a bit jumbled) and conclude with a case supporting keeping gay marriage from being a Constitutionally guaranteed right.

A1: Marriage is a civil right.
A1-1: Loving v. Virginia, which made interracial marriage legal

A2: The government should have no say in gay marriage due to a separation of church and state.
A2-1: "The insinuation of marriage is controlled by the government not the church." Essentially Pro was stating a church marriage is not legal, and religious ceremonies mean nothing to the government until the paperwork is filled out.
A2-2: Religious opinion should have no bearing on the legality of gay marriage

A3: Gay marriage will help the economy
A3-1: Revenue from marriage licenses and higher income taxes will help the economy. "The Comptroller for New York City found that legalizing gay marriage would bring $142 million to the city"s economy and $184 million to the state"s economy over three years." [NO SOURCES PROVIDED]

A4: Gay marriages have lower divorce rates
A4-1: MA had the lowest divorce rate in the country in 2008, and it happens to have legalized gay marriage.
A4-2: Alaska prohibited gay marriage in 1998 and saw a rise in its divorce rate.
A4-3: The seven states with the highest divorce rates between 2003 and 2008 all had constitutional prohibitions to gay marriage [NO SOURCES PROVIDED]

This debate should be judged not on personal moral standpoints, but based on information provided in this debate and the effect of gay marriage on the United States as a whole (including its citizens). Remember, this argument is essentially about the costs versus benefits of gay marriage.

A1: Marriage between a man and a woman is a civil right. Pro may wish gay marriage to be one, but it is currently not a constitutional right guaranteed to all citizens of the US.
A1-1: In one of the few arguments where Pro quoted a source, he used the Supreme Court case Lowing v. Virginia. Pro gave no context, but the case essentially made interracial marriage legal. Pro"s quote that marriage is "one of the basic civil rights of man" was taken out of context. Chief Justice Earl Warren, who stated it, continued on, stating that "[the right to marriage] is fundamental for our very existence and survival." Gay marriage is not necessary for the existence or survival of the United States. The context of interracial marriage and that court case was very different than the context within which we are debating. (1)

A2: Pro"s point makes no sense and is irrelevant.
A2-1/2: I believe Pro intended to write the "institution of marriage." I agree that religion has no place deciding federal law. However, Pro failed to give an example of how it does, and I don"t believe that it does.

A3: Pro failed to provide sources, and in my own arguments I will prove that gay marriage is in fact harmful to the US economy.

A4: Low divorce rates are not important when considering legalizing gay marriage. Pro even failed to cite sources.
A4-1/2: Correlation does not imply causation. First of all, Pro failed to provide a source. Secondly, there is no statistical evidence implying that these "facts" are anything but coincidental. (2-I would suggest reading this Pro)
A4-3: As of 2008, the last year included on Pro"s sourceless statistic, only one state had legalized gay marriage. It is more than likely that of the remaining 49 states, 7 of them would have the highest divorce rates in a country containing only 50 states. (3)


I"d like to begin by stating that I personally have nothing against homosexuals. In fact, I"m not necessarily debating the side of the topic I believe in, so I hope that no one is offended. With that said, for the purpose of this debate, I"ll maintain the position that while homosexuals aren"t something bad deserving punishment, they should not have the right to marry in the US.

A1: Gay marriage hurts children, which are essentially the point of marriage.
There is one inarguable fact regarding gay marriage. It always denies a child a mother or father. Pro might respond with an rebuttal involving divorce, but divorce doesn"t have the same repercussions as never having a parent of one gender. A 2012 study found that children of a gay or lesbian parent are more likely to have social and emotional problems (4). The study involved a survey of 15,000 children and found that those with a homosexual parent had fared and continued to fare worse than their counterparts from straight marriages (in a categorical minimum 19/40 categories). Additionally, studies have shown that girls raised without fathers are at higher risk for teenage pregnancy, and children without a mother are deprived of security and advice from their female parent (5). A 2001 study published in American Sociological Review found that it"s likely that children with gay or lesbian parents are more likely to engage in homosexual behavior themselves.

A2: Gay marriage diminishes value of a traditional marriage.
The purpose of marriage is hinted at in rebuttal A1-1. The reason rights are given to married couples is that they are necessary for a country to continue and thrive. Heterosexual couples procreate and usually raise children together, strengthening or at least maintaining a nation. Simply put, gay couples can not have children.

A3: Gay marriage hurts the economy.
Despite what Pro argued in his opening argument, gay marriage has a strong chance at hurting the economy. Gay marriage would give gay couples the same legal rights as married couples, including "claiming a tax exemption for a spouse, receiving social security payments from a deceased spouse, and coverage by a spouse"s health insurance policy. In 2009, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the cost to the federal government of giving employment benefits (not Social Security or some taxes) to gay partners of some federal employees would be $596 million at the minimum between 2010 and 2019 (6).

Note: I type in a separate text editor; when copying and pasting apostrophes turn into quotes. My apologies.

Debate Round No. 2


Lauren0707 forfeited this round.


jdoe0 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Lauren0707 forfeited this round.


jdoe0 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No votes have been placed for this debate.