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

Gay marriage should be legal in all 50 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: 6/24/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 932 times Debate No: 76839
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (22)
Votes (1)




Hello welcome to the debate! I will be pro for same-sex marriage and you will be con against same-sex marriage. 1st round will be acceptance only, This debate is closed is say something in the comments if you want to join. (I will only pick someone at or below my level) P.S If you find a way to join this debate with out my consent you will be forced to forfeit. And also, your opening argument should be SHORT.


Thanks for having me debate my fellow opponent. Like the rule stated on keeping my opening argument short, Gay Marriage should not be legalized for all 50 states because it will ensue a lot of conflict with religious beliefs, and is economically more beneficial to have in only be a state law.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you SnaxAttack for joining this debate, I look for a fair good debate. Also, I would like to clarify something about this debate I said it should be legal in all 50 states. This has nothing to do with states legalizing same-sex marriage. It is weather or not it should be legalized across the country. Now to my debate. Gay marriage should be legal because you should have the right to marry who you want to marry. The government does not have a right to reach their hand into your relationships. Gay couples love each other and they deserve the right to get married. A region that you don't even follow should not affect your choices as a human being. Also as we know the supreme court is deciding on gay marriage right now. And they have legalized it as we are speaking. Lets take a look at something else Abortion. A woman should have the right to make her own choice. A religion shouldn't affect that. This is my short opening argument. Good luck to you.


Because of messing up the first round without just accepting, I decided to penalize myself for this round to keep things fair.

Was Penalized for this Round
Debate Round No. 2


Snaxattck thank you for posting that you were penalized and nothing else. As we know gay marriage is now legal in these 50 states. You know why? Because of what the Supreme courts quote says right on the building "equal justice under law." If gay marriage was illegal that wouldn't be true the LGBT wouldn't have their equal rights to everyone else. Why do we reach into these peoples private lives? Also if gay marriage was illegal, it would break the rules of our own construction! Under the 14th amendment! That everyone is equal! Would that be the case if gay marriage was illegal?

The people of the United States are starting to agree with same-sex marriage, according to a recent poll 60% of Americans now agree with Same-sex marriage. So now the religious community is less than the people that favor same-sex marriage. So now even some religious Americans are agreeing with same-sex marriage. Because of "equality under all." Everyone deserves to be equal to another no one deserves more rights than another person. Why should the LGBT community be discriminated against? They have done nothing wrong! And the religious community still has their right to their opinion they can reject a marriage if they choose. They can reject something if it is against their belief's, that's the separation of church and state. Like I said before gay marriage was legalized because it gives everyone equal rights, religion can argue against it all they want. But the construction said that everyone deserves equal rights. Even the smallest of groups, everyone deserves equal rights.

And please don't give me your crap that it violates religious beliefs because more religions accept gay marriage than the ones that don't. Link here: and even in the article most religions say that everyone deserves their rights. Would a god want a world where everyone is equal? And where people aren't discriminated upon? The answer to that is yes. There is nothing wrong with what they think they can choose what they want as long as it doesn't hurt me or you. So how does there marriage affect you? The answer to that is it doesn't. Gay marriage is free will you have the right to make that decision. Why should a religion that they don't even follow affect them? Why should another persons opinion affect them? Why should a catholic church affect them? Everyone has the right to their views. But, these people love each other they are not doing any harm! They should live under the same roof together and live a happy amazing life. Not be prevented from doing so. Thank you I am looking for snax attack to post his debate. I hope his debate is equal to mine in length as well. Sorry this is so late! Good luck to you! :)


Because of last round of breaking the "Acceptance Rule", I shall now post the extension of my opening argument. To begin my argument of the topic, Gay Marriage should not be legalized in all 50 states, I will address a few definitions given within the topic. "Gay Marriage" is defined as: "Marriage between partners of the same sex (as recognized in some jurisdictions)". "Legal", or "Legalized" (Plural; Past Tense), is defined as: "Permitted by law". And we can all agree that the "50 States" is the United States of America. All the definitions were defined from the Webster's Dictionary.

Previously, in my opening argument, I stated that Gay Marriage should not be legalized because of ensuing a ton of arguments in religious beliefs, and that I would be arguing for it being a state law than a legalization of all 50 states. My opponents first argument, that he brought up, is that Gay Marriage should be legalized because of having a right to marry whoever anyone desires. I agree with that statement, but should more stay as a state law and not a country law. There are only 13 of the 50 states of the United States do not allow Gay Marriage, so the couple has many states that allow the idea. If a same sex couple loves each other that much, they will take the time to move to a state that allows Gay Marriage and get married; otherwise they can happily just be dating.

To support this claim of dating, stated in a Huffington Post titled: "10 Reasons it's Totally Fine to Never get Married", when a couple gets married; there is more chaos, than just being a couple. Examples are having to put more "trust" among another, which places more stress upon the individuals; and a higher chance of a divorce rate. Compared to just a simple break up, which is worse? A system that has actually been said to "work" for same sex couples, besides marriage, is a policy titled: "Domestic Partnership". A Domestic Partnership is defined as: "Interpersonal relationship between two individuals who live together and share a common domestic life but are not married (to each other or to anyone else)". Basically a marriage, but not a true marriage; which has actually been more beneficial in a same sex couple, than marriage. With having the ability to date, but not having too much legalization on certain elements compared to a marriage. So if my opponent's main argument is that a same sex couple should have a right to marry each other, why not use this method instead of marriage? Why "light the fuse" against religious beliefs, that will cause more conflict, than this simple solution?

In my opponents later argument, he stated that legalizing Gay Marriage would not offend anyone's religious beliefs. Take note voters that for his source that he used the website "Wikipedia". A website that is technically not a reliable source, stated under the Education Association. So his argument about religions agreeing to Gay Marriage, is factually not reliable. While the fact that most religions oppose Gay Marriage, the numbers say that they strongly oppose Gay Marriage. On the website of Public Religion, most religions are against the idea of same sex couples; and to even support this fact even further, in a poll taken last year, it states that 83% of Americans follow a certain religion. The highest being Christianity, and second being Judaism. So why enforce an idea like same sex marriage, where many disagree, instead of just following the idea of a Domestic Partnership? Why start a religious war, when it can easily be prevented?

It is true that it was recently passed for same sex couples to get married in all 50 states, but what can come from it? The idea already made impact in numerous churches, so how much longer until this country enforces someone to believe something that they don't? It is rumored that churches will now be required to give a marriage to same sex couples, even though they do not believe their ideology, ripping apart their own area of "Freedom of Religion". Freedom of Religion is the right to believe whatever you want, but who doesn't say that the government will require to fulfill someone else beliefs? Same sex marriage will make this worse, instead of benefiting the country! Because of the lack of characters for this argument, I will have to save of why Gay Marriage is not economically beneficial.

Debate Round No. 3


Due to my lack of a argument I forfeit. I was looking for a more fair debate, Snax attack didn't take note that it was already legalized. I am not willing to put up another argument, and I look to take a break from DDO from a while. So voters DRILL ME.


Due to my opponent forfeiting the round, I will quickly discuss my argument again. To begin, my opponent states that I forgot the fact that marriage is already legalized, which I did mention that I know briefly, and stated that my argument was my own personal thoughts on the subject. The idea of using a "Domestic Partnership", which is similar to marriage but is not. In a statistic, it states that more people prefer to date than get married; because of all the future confusion held within. As well as the fact that no religion is against the idea of a "Domestic Partnership", lowering the conflict of religious beliefs; where most are actually against same sex marriage.

So voters, who do you vote for? My opponent who provided one idea that people have a right to get married; causing more chaos upon his idea with different beliefs, or my idea that resolves conflict between beliefs and not necessary to legalize it in all 50 states if this idea works?
Debate Round No. 4
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by totallyserious 1 year ago
i feel like it was legalized too early.
Posted by tricias33 1 year ago
Legalizing gay marriage can only occur one of two ways; by Federal legislation or by individual State legislation. The problem I see with this type of decision being under State authority is the human mobility factor.

Consider this; a gay couple in a State permitting gay marriage relocate (one, five, ten, etc.) years later to a State which does not recognize their marriage as a legal union. How is it possible to reconcile the difference in State to State legislation under these circumstances?

If regulated in such a manner it would compromise the "Freedom" of the United States Citizens who could no longer choose where they live or whom they marry.

The argument that non-gay citizens' "Freedom" is compromised is invalidated since gay marriage rights do not disallow or impede their right to choose where they reside or whom they marry.

As such, it would seem, for this particular issue that the citizens would be better served on a Federal level, which would of course be developed, debated, and eventually decided on by a majority vote of Congress. This issue is an almost perfect example of where Federal vs. State is a necessary component of the Government which "Unites" us.

Therefore, I support that gay marriage, if it is indeed legalized, not only SHOULD apply to all 50 States but would necessitate nationwide legalization in order to ensure equality of the U.S. Citizen's personal liberty.
Posted by michigainman56 1 year ago
Snax Attack, will be penalized for the 2nd round. As stated by him.
Posted by TGambit 2 years ago
(I will only pick someone at or below my level) That would be easy mode in video games :)
Posted by SnaxAttack 2 years ago
Forgot about that, and I apologize. For that I think I should be penalized for the second round, with only being allowed to type in "Was Penalized"
Posted by michigainman56 2 years ago
Snax attack has broken a rule. 1st round acceptance only.
Posted by michigainman56 2 years ago
One more thing Snax Attack please make your opening argument short!
Posted by michigainman56 2 years ago
I have picked SnaxAttack for this debate. I hope that he debates at my level but it seems like we are both pretty even! Good luck Snax!
Posted by lannan13 2 years ago
No, that just means I want to debate. Hacking would be different and harder than just typing 3 letters.
Posted by SnaxAttack 2 years ago
I wish to challenge you
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year 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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro Forfeited, so conduct to Con. Con used more and better sources than wikipeadia so he gains those points.