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

Gay marriage

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The Voting Period Ends In
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/16/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 1 day ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 204 times Debate No: 96169
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (0)




-Con will argue for gay marriage to be banned (in the US).
-Con accepts BoP, and therefore must provide opening arguments in THIS round.
-Con starts, so Pro finishes (Con must pass on final round).

-Must genuinely oppose gay marriage. No devils advocate please.


Enable for this debate to make any sense whatsoever, we must first define "bann," which as stupid as it may sound, is very crucial. Most people supporting a "bann," are not entailing a "bann," but rather simply a lack of enorsement, which is something completely different.
However, since in most cases "banning" gay marriage is used to refer to the goveronment not acknowledging gay marriage, I will thus argue that the goveronment should not acknowladge gay marriage.

The US Federal Goveronment was never given the power to acknowladge any marriage, let alone forcefully tamper with the definitions set up by general consensus. What does this mean? Well fist of all it means that technically all marriages should be "banned" since the goveronment isn't given the power to acknowladge any of them, but secondly, and more importantly, the goveronment is never given the power to define or redefine marriage.
And according to the Tenth Ammendment, this power should be given to the states respectively, or to the people, and in this case no state to my knowledge has defined or redefined marriage, thus this power is reserved for the people, 62 % of whhome support traditional marriage. {1}

Why do we need to acknowladge gay marriage? Only 3.8% of Americans identify as LGBT {2}, so why should we redefine marriage, contrary to the will of 62% of the population to conform to a tiny 4%'s fringe lifestyle? Furthermore, I don't see how a peice of paper helps them at all, if they want to get married (i.e. pretend to be married), they can just move in with eachother- they don't even need a pastor, thy can get married by their next door neighbor- Joe.
In Karaism we just sighn a contract and that's it, so why would we need the goveronment to acknowladge this marriage just so we can pay more taxes?

This whole "gay marriage" bandwagon is complete nonsense, it is nothing more than a cultural and political ploy to create moral decay in our already decaying society, and masscarading this decay as "new" or "trendy," or "equality," when in reality it is not new and has nothing to do with equality.
Fact is this nonsense hass appeared throught history, ad it always seems to go along with the fall of a civilisation;
“as political and economic freedom diminishes, sexual freedom tends compensating to increase. And the dictator (unless he needs cannon fodder and families with which to colonize empty or conquered territories) will do well to encourage that freedom. In conjunction with the freedom to daydream under the influence of dope and movies and the radio, it will help to reconcile his subjects to the servitude which is their fate." - Aldous Huxley, Brave New World {3}

I see no good reason to endorse what you may call a "death omen," for America.


Debate Round No. 1


Let me boil down all of your arguments. Also, let me know if I am mistaken.
You suggest that:
1. The government should ban all marriage, therefore gay marriage too.
-That wasn"t the point of the debate, and you sound like you support straight marriage much more than gay marriage, so I don"t think you agree with yourself here. Either way, I will note that marriage provides benefits to society, so we should have the option. Also, later you suggest that if most people support something, then it should be law. Most people want government to recognize marriage, so by your own standard, marriage should be recognized by government.

2. The government doesn"t have the power to redefine marriage.
-We are talking about legal marriages, so yes they do. Congress created the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. According to the Supreme Court, state bans on gay marriage are in violation of that amendment.

3. Not many people are gay, so why not ban it?
-I"m not sure what the argument is here. Things that are uncommon should be banned?

4. Most people oppose it, so it should be banned.
-Your own second source shows that 60% of Americans support it, so this is not true. If your point is that the government should obey the majority, then that means they should keep gay marriage legal. You proved yourself wrong. Even if most people did oppose it, so what? The majority shouldn"t discriminate.

5. Legal marriage doesn"t help gay people, because they can still be together either way.
-There are legal and social benefits to gay marriage.

6. Why would we need the government to acknowledge this marriage just so we can pay more taxes?
-So gay people can get the benefits that come with marriage.

7. It creates moral decay.
-How? Discriminating against gay people is what causes harm and unfairness. You said yourself that gays can be together either way, so what harm does it cause?

8. It has nothing to do with equality.
-Benefits denied based on gender and orientation means there is inequality.

9. Gay marriage legalization will lead to the fall of America.
-You"ll need to provide a lot of support for a huge claim like that. Even if it were to happen, it is inevitable. Gay marriage is here to stay, so it"s pretty pointless to try to ban it.


We're talking about two completely different things here, just becauyse the people want to have the Federal Goveronment acknowladge marriages doesn't mean anything since this is a constitutional point. This means that since the constituton in effect gives the people the power to define marriage is grounds to base the definition off of the will of the people. But acknowladging marriages because the people want it does not apply to this case since nowhere in the constitution does it say "if the people want to do something contrary to this constitution,the goveronment should go along with it."It DOES, however, say that if a power isn't given to the Federal Goveronment it belongs to the states or to the people.

First of all, like I said before, legal marriages are not spelled out in the constitution neither were they added in via an ammendment. All this is is the goveronment overstepping its given powers then trying to redefine a religious institution as if it was a legal istitution invented by itself.
Second of all, just because the goveronment decides i doesn't make it so- if the goveronment passed a law saying that a pile of manuer was an ice cream sunday it is still a plile of manuer, and the goveronment still doesn't have the power to define what it ice cream and what is not.

No, the argument is that the rest of society should NOT have to conform their ways to appease a tiny minorities fringe lifestyle. This is completely nonsensical and tyranous, I don't get to decide that because I hate the color red wearing red should be illegal. I also don't get to decide that it is discrimination against gross people to not serve manuer at an ice cream parlor, ad hence demand that all ice cream parlors stock manuer on account of my fringge lifestyle.

I said that the majority of Americans define marriage as between a man and a woman, thus the innate definition in America is between a man and a woman, no goveronment involved. For exampe, 70% of americans are Christian, thus making this a Christian nation. This obcourse doesn't mean that we should all have to go by their religion, but if I came along and decreed that everyone should wear Tzitzit because I'm a Jew, this would be tyranny.
Likewise, a tiny minority of people live a fringe lifestyle and want to goveronment to redefine a religious institution according to Secular values. THAT is tyranous, you cannot redefine an entire institution because you like to live life in a stange and immoral way.

There are no legal or societal benefits to having a goveronment peice of paper that frankly doesn't mean jack diddly squat handed to you by some judge. A much better idea is to decentralise marriage, and impliment a lassiez faire marriage system.
Basically if 2 men want to bee "married," they just can get a peice of paper and make up the terms of their "marriage," sighn it, and have some random dude declare them married. Then if a matter arises the goveronment will uphold all of their marrital duties since it is a legal binding contract.
Contrary to what the liberals may wish though, these contracts will NOT be handed out, printed, or recorded by goveronment, and it will be acknowlkadged as a contract and not marriage since marriage is a religious institution, and the govt should say out of religion.
Rather, the govt will uphold these oblegations like any other contract in a court of law.

There are no benefits to paying more money, and can you give me a few of these supposed "benefits," right now you are just making assertations. I personally cannot see anything less beneficial than spending money.

I said that we shouldn't care what they do alone because that's just stupid, but the prromotion of and acknowladgement of homosexuality by goveronment creates moral decay since our kids will be taught that it's OK somehow, which DOES create harm.

It isn't discrimination any more than firing someone for sleeping on the job is discriminating against lazy people. This is because a lazy person could get up and do some work just as much as a gay person could not be gay, not marry someone of the same gender, or marry someone of the opposite gender. Just an example, but the same principle applies.
Besides, if no marriages are acknowledged by goveronment then everyone is equal, AND we pay less taxes. So I don't really see my opponents point here.

No, if we impliment a law getting goveronment out of marriage alltogether they cannot claim that it is discrimination since no one is getting married by Uncle Sam. Thus they cannot make such absurd claims as ":discrimination," or "the 14t ammendment," sice everyone is exactly equal under the law! I think this is a genius way of fixing our issue as well as creating a compromise between the liberals and conservatives on this issue.
Debate Round No. 2


I don"t think you can just change the meaning of "ban" to "not acknowledge". That isn"t what the debate was intended for. Either way, the government doesn"t have the constitutional authority to "not acknowledge" gay marriage because that would violate the equal protection clause.

We are talking about legal definitions. Let"s not conflate separate issues.

Yes, you shouldn"t be able to ban the color red from being worn. This helps my argument more than yours because it"s not your right to infringe on other people"s rights. If someone wants to force ice cream parlors to stock manure, then they are infringing on the parlor owner"s rights. If someone wants to ban manure from ice cream parlors, they shouldn"t be allowed to infringe on rights that way either unless there is a health concern which there may be in that case. Most people were bothered by interracial couples, but that doesn"t mean that interracial marriage should be banned. Most people in some countries even think gays should be executed.

Again, we are talking about whether to have a legal ban on gay marriage. What difference does it make if people think of a word as having a certain meaning? Who would be hurt by changing a legal definition of marriage to include same sex?

Some benefits: Hospital visitation during an illness, the option of filing a joint tax return, access to family health coverage, US residency and family unification for partners from another country, bereavement leave and inheritance rights, child custody rights, spousal or child support, equitable division of property, adoption, etc.

How is it harmful for children to be accepting of gays? What about children who are harmed because they are gay?

Firing someone because they are lazy makes sense. Firing someone because they are GAY/straight/christian/atheist/black/white, even though they are doing a great job, would be discrimination. You can"t choose who you"re attracted to, and even if you could, so what? If blacks could choose to be white, would that make it okay to discriminate against blacks? No.

Your argument here is that eliminating all marriage would mean no inequality. Again, I am talking about banning gay marriage, not all marriage. And either way, transitioning to a system of no marriage because of prejudice towards gays, means that this legal change is a result of discrimination.

If you don"t want to get gay married, then don"t. Millions of people shouldn"t be treated as second class citizens when they aren't hurting anyone, just because you think it's gross for two women or two men to love each other.


Alright, so in this round I'm going to go over my key points and respond to my opponents argument in the process.

Actually, I set up this definition in round 1 and you only contested it just now in the final round, if you had a problem with this definition, you should have brought it up in Round 2. Secondly, it doesn't take authority to not acknowledge marriage, any more than it takes money to not buy something or a 2/3rd vote in congress to not pass an amendment. Third of all, the equal protection clause actually has nothing to do with this issue, it states:
"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
By not acknowledging marriage, you are not denying anyone equal protection under the law, you are simply de-federalising a religious institution. Which brings me to my next point.

I believe I pointed out earlier in this debate that marriage is a religious institution, and hence the government should not have any part of it as per the separation of Church and State, the First Amendment states:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Since marriage is a religious institution, the government is in essence functioning as a Church by acknowledging any marriage, which it should not do. This is a clear violation of the separation of church and state and violates our constitution. Which brings me to my third point.

As I stated earlier, see Round 1, the Tenth Amendment prohibits the Federal Government from exercising any powers not granted to it in the Constitution, which re laid out in Article 1 Section 8:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy; To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;"
Nowhere in this list does it say "to acknowledge marriages."

I don't see how acknowledging gay "marriages," protects them from discrimination in the workplace, in fact I can see how it would create the exact opposite result. A bunch of homophobes see how gay marriage has been "legalised," and decide to go kill gay people and put them on their car, or tie them to the back of a car and drive until they're ground to dust, or some other horrible thing.

Yes, I think we should not acknowledge gay marriages since the government shouldn't acknowledge marriage, period. Also, I am not saying that we should not acknowledge marriages on account of gay marriages, if traditional marriages were acknowledged and gay marriages wouldn't, I would still advocate for the de federalisation of marriage.
In regards to your second point, my entire case for this debate was something called the NAP, that is the:
Which is the entrée foundation of libertarianism and basically states that we should not pass any act or decree that would increase the governments influence on the citizens lives, which includes the acknowledgement of marriage. So again, I don't care how gay these gay people are, I don't care how many men or women they get "married," to ad I never said that I believe it should be banned because it is gross (though it is gross).
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Dujec 6 days ago
It's common for people to point to cultural and religious elements of marriage in opposition to gay marriage. I'd definitely be Pro to getting the government out of those aspects entirely but I support the legal merger of resources and responsibilities.
Posted by Dujec 6 days ago
@ Ron Paul I object to your "It really isn't necessary" section. everyone deserves the same rights and privileges. I see marriage as a business merger of sorts legally combining resources and responsibilities. I think the government should enforce contracts like this for gay and straight couples alike.
Posted by ThisIsMyUsername333 1 week ago
Oh, never mind. That's what I thought originally.
Posted by RonPaulConservative 1 week ago
Take the government out of it emturely
Posted by Dujec 1 week ago
hmmm, that sad frown emoji didn't translate well.
Posted by Dujec 1 week ago
@ RonPaul Ron Paul would not approve of this message -1 (_83;A077;_84;,) Props +1 for taking your view for open debate.
Posted by ThisIsMyUsername333 1 week ago
Hold on, I think I misread your argument. Assuming you are the governor of a state, would you ban gay marriage, or just take the government out of it entirely?
Posted by RonPaulConservative 1 week ago
How so?
Posted by ThisIsMyUsername333 1 week ago
Whoah, RonPaulConservative may have just changed my mind a bit...
No votes have been placed for this debate.