The Instigator
Natec
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Springheeledjack
Con (against)
Tied
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: 10/4/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 496 times Debate No: 62512
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

Natec

Pro

Rounds:

Pro

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

Con

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

Rules

(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 with a 7 point loss.
(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.
Springheeledjack

Con

Hi, Natec! I am happy to contend this subject. Unlike most people arguing against gay marriage, I will not be invoking theological reasons why gay marriage shouldn't be allowed, but will instead post secular objections to gay marriages.

My first argument against gay marriage being legalized in the US is based on the legal definition of the word "marriage". That is generally accepted in the US as being a legal union between a man and a woman.[1] If we change that definition, it becomes a union between a partner and another partner. This definition of marriage could allow people to marry their kids, or their dog. I want to be clear that I do not think a change in marriage laws will turn the US into a scene out of the last days of Rome, but I do think it would lead to all kinds of abominable couplings. Do I have any direct evidence of this? Well, no, because there has been no true challenge on the legal definition of marriage yet. But it does stand to reason that with a publicized change in marriage laws to open definitions, that there will be a few people taking advantage of that in all the wrong ways. Frankly, even one person practising child marriage would be a moral abomination in my eyes.

My second argument against gay marriage being legalized is that gay marriage discriminates against straight people by rewarding gays with tax credits for getting married in some parts of the US.[2] That is not in any way "equal" marriage like the lgbt and civil rights communities claim it is. That is giving people more credit than others for joining a union and is discriminatory, which is again a moral outrage in my eyes.

Anyway there we go, those are my reasons for being against gay marriage

Footnotes

[1]- http://www.law.cornell.edu...
[2]- http://www.bankrate.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Natec

Pro

Natec forfeited this round.
Springheeledjack

Con

Springheeledjack forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Natec

Pro

Natec forfeited this round.
Springheeledjack

Con

Springheeledjack forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
Natec

Pro

Natec forfeited this round.
Springheeledjack

Con

Springheeledjack forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by hatshepsut 2 years ago
hatshepsut
The Cornell citation in the Con argument is to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which has been overturned by the Supreme Court in favor of states' right to define marriage.

See Matthews June 26, 2013 in Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com...

So, the "man & lady" thing applies in most, but not nearly all, states. Exceptions include California. See map in 2nd Washington Post article which says Supreme Court may rule specifically on Gay Marriage this session:

Barnes, Oct 4, '14: http://www.washingtonpost.com...
No votes have been placed for this debate.