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

Gay marriage should be legalized in the United States

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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: 3/18/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,574 times Debate No: 22122
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)




I am con (against the resolution.) Opponent is pro (in support of the resolution.)

First round is for acceptance.


I accept.
Debate Round No. 1


First off, I would like to thank Phantom for accepting my debate challenge. Having debated him in the past, I know him as a very talented debater. I look forward to a challenging and insightful debate over this issue.

In my opinion, before debating the topic of same-sex marriage, one must first discuss the word "marriage." What is marriage, and, just as importantly, what significance does it bear? In the eyes of the United States government (let us keep in mind that the resolution strictly pertains to US policy), marriage is a contractual and consensual relationship between parties that is recognized by the law. [1] With this contract comes a wide spectrum of rights and benefits to the parties that are handed down from the government. [2] Why does the government give rights and benefits to people engaged in a marital relationship and not do the same for those within different kinds of relationships (such as friendships)? In other words, what makes a marital relationship unique enough to justify the parties' obtainment of rights and benefits than those who are not married? The government, therefore, has a vested interest in marital relationships as opposed to non-marital ones.

Why does the government invest in marital relationships as opposed to others? What is the difference between a strong friendship between two parties and a strong marital connection between two people? The sole difference between a very strong friendship and a marriage (as accepted by current federal standards) is this: procreative compatibility. The institution of marriage creates an organized system that enables parties to procreate and, at a holistic level, produce future citizens to maintain a society. [3] Hence, the state has a vested interest in legally and economically investing in those who are compatible to procreate, a man and a woman.

Is the government justified in advocating procreation through supporting marriage? Absolutely. The United States people, notably deemed "by the people, for the people" by Abraham Lincoln in his famous Gettysburg Address [4], depends on its citizens to maintain progress. Through procreation, future citizens are produced, thereby maintaining the stability and progress of governmental affairs.

A common counterargument is that marriage is more than a legal institution; it is also about "love" and "commitment." Well, if we were to justify marriage through arbitrary terms such as these, we would not only be justifying gay marriage but many other hypothetical types of marriage, as well.

And this leads us to the "Pandora's box" concept. If the term "marriage" were completely redefined to incorporate gay marriage, would it be all right to incorporate other types of marriage, such as polygamy... and marriages involving animals... and marriages to inanimate objects...? As we stretch out the concept of "marriage" to incorporate other relationships, the term has the potential of becoming semantically insignificant. When every relationship has the potential of becoming marriage, what does "marriage" become, anyway? Its legal significance in the eye of the government, which has been justified, will vanish as each new type of marriage comes into the spotlight.




phantom forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Hm. Well, this is a shame. Extend my arguments.


Sorry, I won't be able to finish this debate. I really hate doing this, but I haven't had the time. I had to concede the other one I was just in as well.

Sorry for the waist of time.
Debate Round No. 3


All right. Fair enough. Thank you for having the courtesy to let me know.
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by PianoRocker24 4 years ago
This has thus far been interesting I shall wait for more before I state my opinion.
Posted by InVinoVeritas 4 years ago
Hm, fair enough.
Posted by phantom 4 years ago
Don't worry, I used to be a guy. Until recently actually. DDO is going through an epidemic of gender change at the moment.
Posted by InVinoVeritas 4 years ago
I mean, "having debated her in the past, I know her as a very talented debater."

Sorry... I should probably check my opponents' genders from now on.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: ff