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

Gay marriage SHOULD be legal in all 50 States, protected by a federal law.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 6/28/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 703 times Debate No: 77074
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)




My claim is that gay marriage should be legal and protected in the United States reasons, including the fact that gays are also protected under the 14th amendment.
R1: Acceptance
R2: Opening Statements, NOT rebuttals
R3: Rebuttals
R4: Rebuttals
R5: Closin Statements


we should recognize that the natural world creates natural distinctions between male and female, and their cohabitation etc is what produces offspring. they are a natural unit for the purposes of kids, and a natural unit for the purposes of simply recognizing nature.
we can have civil unions or something to respect others, perhaps, but that doesn't mean we have to give the same value to something that is fundamentally different, by calling it marriage.

also, as far as procreation goes... we're simply recognizing that procreation would ever only occur with a male and a female... even if they are infertile, we're recognizing the inherent value that only a male and a female can procreate. we could look atgranting marriage to an infertile couple as simply a nice gesture that recnogizes their born potential, even if it's no longer effectively there.

as a note, it is not clear if pro thinks there should be a federal statute or constitutional amendment that allows gay marriage. the debate just says "federal law".

he does mention the 14th amendment so i will address that. the main point is that this is something the legislature should decide, not a bunch of unelected officials. when u give rights to gay marriage, you deprive religious rights to fashion laws as you see fit, and that amendment for religion is explicit and primary in the first amendment. there's something moral about letting localities decide their own laws, even if you disagree with them. when the 14th amendment was ratified, it was because of black rights. so it is reasonable that we allow interracial marriage. when that amendment was passed, no one permitted gay marriage. we should look to the origional context to decide if this is an issue that is fundamental, or not. given only a third of people even agreed with gay marriage even ten years ago, shows that this isn't something fundamental, but an "Extra" that can be debated. only now does majority rule favor gay marraige, but taht doesn't mean localities should be denied their right to decide for themselves. afterall, the tenth amendment gives power to the states to decide anything not listed explicitly in the constitution.
and a final note. they got the right as it was deemed "fundamental". this is something like hte right to raise your kids, that is basic to human dignity. marriage is a man made institution and isn't fundamental to anyone's existence. should we look at gay marriage as so similar to other fundametal rights like raising your kids? it's not on the same level
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting this debate. I would like to point out that you used R1 to state your opening claim instead of accepting the debate, so I would ask you to please forfeit your Round 5.

Every human being in the United States is equally protected under the law, or should be. The 14th amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified on July 9, 1868, states as part of it's Section 1 that " 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." The key part of this that addresses what we are debating is the last clause, "nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This does not mean that everyone gets to do as they please, but it means that any common practice law of the United States that any group of law abiding, born or naturalized, citizens partakes in must be lawful to partake in by any group of people. As long as this definition and translation of the 1st section of the 14 amendment stands, it is unconstitutional to not grant homosexuals the right to marry. As law abiding, homosexual citizens are in act human, they must be protected equally as heterosexuals are. It's as simple as that.

Since you already posted, I will address some of your points. You say that since procreation is never possible between men, we should not grant them the right to marry. For now I will ignore what I previously said about the 14th Amendment and only speak in a fashion regarding morality. "also, as far as procreation goes... we're simply recognizing that procreation would ever only occur with a male and a female... even if they are infertile, we're recognizing the inherent value that only a male and a female can procreate. we could look atgranting marriage to an infertile couple as simply a nice gesture that recnogizes their born potential, even if it's no longer effectively there." This is such an inconsistent argument I don't even know where to start. A civil union should be granted to homosexuals, but not marriage, because men and women can never marry. Well first of all why is marriage based around procreation? And in that case what would even be the difference between a civil union and a marriage? In that case it would only be a difference of nomenclature. And you say barren women and men can get married, but there is a potential for conception. But there is NO potential for conception between a man and a barren woman.

So all in all, I would like to see you respond to my first paragraph, and please keep your arguments consistent.


i'll just reiterate my points.

and i note, that even a barren woman has a born potential, inherently. gay men do not, inherently have potential for kids. and if we grant gay marriage, mustn't we grant polygamous marriage? treat people equally, the way they define marriage.
Debate Round No. 2


My arguments stand. I will try to flesh out my points I guess, so there is something to rebut. First of all, a barren woman has NO possibility of conceiving a child. Even if WOMEN as a gender can, a barren woman CANNOT. A barren woman and a man have just as much chance conceiving as two men do. That being said, why is your definition of marriage centered around procreation? If two people have no intent on making a baby, should they not be allowed to marry? What about an asexual woman and an asexual man?

Addressing your point about polygamy: the main difference I see in this argument is that polygamy is a choice, and homosexuality isn't. And before you say "well what about pedophilia? That's not a choice, so shouldn't an adult be allowed to marry a child?" This argument is also invalid because a child under a certain threshold of age does not have the wherewithal, knowledge, or experience to properly consent to a marriage. The same goes for animals.


you miss the point that even if it is effectively not possible for a woman to conceive, it is still innately only possible with a man and a woman. i focus on procreation, cause it is the cornerstone of a family that has a mother and a father, which is what all children should have.

polygamy isn't a choice any more than homosexuality isn't a choice. both involve innate sexual feelings. and not that whether it's natural is the rule or not, but polygamy is probably even more natural than monogomy... while granting they are all natural, some are more characteristic of the species than others.
Debate Round No. 3


May I ask two things then. 1: if it is important that procreation be the foundation for marriage, then shouldn't the government only allow couples to marry if they plan to have children? And if a woman can't have children, or a man can't, then shouldn't they not be allowed to marry? They should be given a civil union right?

2: Since this is obviously abhorrently large government talk, shouldn't gay people be allowed to marry, if it is in fact not a choice to be gay; the same way it is not a choice to be barren? You don't see a problem with taking away fundamental rights of other people that don't affect you because they can't procreate?


i started debate in the first round so i will let this one go
Debate Round No. 4


I thank my opponent for an engaging debate. Truly this is a big issue today, and needs to he addressed. To be clear, my position still stands that two gay men who want to be married are protected by the 14th amendment, and that even if they can't procreate, they should still be able to get married. And all in all, why do we really care what other people do?
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by CynicalWarlord 2 years ago
Every homophobe that tries to give stupid reasons against gay marriage is just smokescreening the real reason, "cause God done said no"
Posted by Henrysmolen 2 years ago
Yea I know I'm gonna have her skip her last round.
Posted by cathaystewie 2 years ago
Does CON not understand the concept of an acceptance round?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by imabench 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's entire case was based on the belief that state legislatures should decide gay marriage rights, not the Supreme Court. However, she completely fails to justify how state legislatures are superior to the Supreme Court, which they are not, so arguments go squarely to the pro