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

Gay marriage should be legalized in the United States

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: 8/25/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 817 times Debate No: 60928
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)






(1) Rules
(2) Contentions
(3) Contentions/rebuttals
(4) Rebuttals/Closing Statements


(1) Contentions
(2) Contentions/Rebuttals
(3) Rebuttals/Closing statements
(4) Shall type only "no round as agreed upon" and nothing else


(1) If my opponent fails to type "No round as agreed upon" in the last round will lead to a full 7 point FF. If my opponent types any other words besides "No round as agreed upon" in the last round, he will FF the entire debate to me.
(2) 10k character limits.
(3) No semantics or trolling. This will result in a ff.
(4) Plagiarizing results in a FF.
(5) The rules, structure, and definitions of the debate cannot be negotiated or changed once the debate has started.

The BOP is shared in this debate.



I accept this debate, and I hope each of us can gain better insight on the questions driving this debate.

1. The state has a legitimate interest in promoting traditional marriage.

First, it is important to show the difference between permit and promote. The government only promotes something if it serves a legitimate interest, such as with charity. Since Charity benefits society the government has been promoting it via tax deductions. Right now most states permit same-sex couples, but promote traditional marriage. This brings the question if the state does have a legitimate interest in promoting traditional marriage. They do, and in fact they have three legitimate interest in promoting traditional marriage. The first reason is traditional marriage promotes responsible procreation. "A core purpose of marriage is to guarantee that, insofar as possible, each child is emotionally, morally, practically, and legally affiliated with the woman and the man whose sexual union brought the child into the world" [1]. This shows that marriage is about procreation. This why the government regulates it. "'[S]ex makes babies, society needs babies, and children need mothers and fathers.' Connecting sex, babies, and moms and dads are the social function of marriage and helps explain why the government rightly recognizes and addresses this aspect of our social lives" [1]. Second, sociological data shows children do best when raised by their married biological parents, which is promoted by traditional marriage laws [2]. This is not about same-sex parenting vs. opposite sex parenting this is biological vs. step/adopted parents. Third, it preserves the institution of marriage by keeping linking Procreation and Marriage. "Marriage is the Strongest Factor in Reducing Child Poverty in the U.S." [4]. Also, "between 1970 and 1996, $229 billion in welfare expenditures could be attributed to social problems related to the breakdown of marriage" [5]. Concluding, All these reasons are about children and the government's interest in promoting traditional marriage.

2. Promoting same-sex marriage has no government interest and undermines the current government interest in marriage.

First, "Allowing same-sex marriage would only further shift the purpose of marriage from producing and raising children to adult gratification" [6]. This breaks the link between marriage and procreation, one of the government interest in marriage. Second, "Sweden began offering same-sex couples benefits in 1987, followed by Denmark in 1989 and Norway in 1993. According to a Feb. 29, 2004 report by Stanley Kurtz, PhD, from 1990 to 2000, Norway's out-of-wedlock birthrate rose from 39% to 50% and Sweden's rose from 47% to 55%. Unmarried parenthood in Denmark rose 25% during the 1990s, and approximately 60% of first born Danish children have unmarried parents. As Kurtz states, 'Marriage is slowly dying in Scandinavia'" [3]. This breaks the first two government interest by increasing out of wedlock children; therefore, being raised outside with their married biological parents. Concluding, the government only has reasons to promote traditional marriage.

3. By redefining marriage, it will make the marriage meaningless.

If love is all that matters in marriage, then other restrictions on marriage like Polygamy bans, Incest prohibitions, Age restrictions should be allowed since all of them are able to love each other. Support for Polygamy is on the rise; according to a Gallup poll people who think Polygamy is morally acceptable has double in the last decade. [7] Also, recently a Federal Judge in Utah struck down the polygamy ban as unconstitutional, and he relied on a line of reasoning utilized to impose same-sex marriage. [8] "If the natural sexual complementary of male and female and the theoretical procreative capacity of an opposite-sex union are to be discarded as principles central to the definition of marriage, then what is left? According to the arguments of the same-sex “marriage” advocates, only love and companionship is truly necessary elements of marriage. But if that is the case, then why should other relationships that provide love, companionship, and a lifelong commitment not also be recognized as “marriages”—including relationships between adults and children, or between blood relatives, or between three or more adults? And if it violates the equal protection of the laws to deny same-sex couples their first choice of marital partner, why would it not do the same to deny pedophiles, polygamists, or the incestuous the right to marry the person (or persons) of their choice?" [9]. There is further proof corroborating these claims. Going back to the Netherlands the country that first legalize Homosexual marriage that "the Netherlands polygamy has been legalized in all but name" [10] In 2005 a civil union of three people were "married" [10]. Concluding, marriage should not be redefined because it will lead to more re-definitions of marriage making marriage meaningless, or getting the government out of the marriage business in which case it would not recognize any couples including same-sex ones.

4. Redefining marriage will harm others.

Everyone is affected by same-sex marriage. First, "Taxpayers, consumers, and businesses would be forced to subsidize homosexual relationships." "On Dec. 17, 2009, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the cost to the federal government of extending employment benefits to same-sex domestic partners of certain federal employees (making no mention of additional costs such as Social Security and inheritance taxes) would be $596 million in mandatory spending and $302 million in discretionary spending between 2010 and 2019. [12]" Also, "Freedom of conscience and religious liberty would be threatened." "So, for example, when Catholic Charities in Boston insisted that they would stay true to principle and refuse to place children for adoption with same-sex couples, they were told by the state that they could no longer do adoptions at all. [13] As shown above that in countries that have redefined marriage that fewer people would marry, and fewer children would be raised by a married mother and father, which causes the government to spend more on welfare because of the increased poverty as single parents and expand on the size of government. Concluding, by recognizing same-sex marriage is puts many directly at harm and other indirectly at harm.

5. Laws defining traditional marriage do not discriminate against anyone.

Many claim such laws that define marriage as a union between one man and one woman discriminate against people; however, this is not true. First, most say it discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. "On its face, does not define marriage for purposes of state law in terms of the sexual orientation of the parties to a marriage, but whether the parties are of the opposite sex. Parties to a union between a man and a woman may or may not be homosexuals. Parties to a same-sex marriage could theoretically be either homosexuals or heterosexuals" [11]. Marriage laws are neutral on their face, because marriage licenses do not inquire as to a person's sexual preference. Second, some say it discriminates based on gender. This is also not true because "marriage laws are facially neutral; they do not single out men or women as a class for disparate treatment, but rather prohibit men and women equally from marrying a person of the same sex" [11]. Concluding, these laws do not discriminate against anyone.

6. If marriage is about children, what about couples who can’t or don’t have children?

"Sound public policy is based on the rule, not the exception, and most marriages do produce children. While not every married couple will have children, every child have both a mom and a dad. Childless marriages serve a broader social purpose too—showing the potential to create children and to meet children’s need for a mom and a dad" [5]

7. The attempt of trying to equate same-sex marriage to interracial marriages is wrong.

This is because the state had no legitimate interest in preventing recognition of interracial couples, in fact, in the supreme court case of Loving v. Virginia "the state argued the scientific evidence is substantially in doubt and, consequently, this Court should defer to the wisdom of the state legislature in adopting its policy of discouraging interracial marriages [14]." However, there is a legitimate state interest in only promoting traditional marriage.


Debate Round No. 1


MasterNate forfeited this round.


I extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 2


MasterNate forfeited this round.


Guidestone forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


MasterNate forfeited this round.


Guidestone forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.