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

Gay marriages should be left alone.

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: 3/5/2011 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,599 times Debate No: 15150
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (8)
Votes (1)




Hello ! I am a christian and a social conservative. Be it resolved that it is a bad idea to interfere in people's private lives over marriage of any kind, traditional or " non-traditional ", and that government should stay out of these issues, neither legislating for or against gay marriage, you are arguing against this, you have 8,000 characters, go.

* Gay marriage should be left alone.
* No constitutional amendment on anything.
* happy hunting.


Marriage, as defined by "The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife." Thus, I contend against the pros talk of leaving gay marriage alone. Marriage is to be held between a man, and woman, nothing more, nothing less. Man, as defined by "An adult male human." This removes any possibility of attacks at marriage being able to be incestuous, or through young-old couples. Woman, as defined by "An adult female human." This removes any debate left that the opponent could sustain over the definition of Marriage.

First, David R. Usher states: "The reason why marriage between men and women is an unfettered constitutional right is because its equalizing power is uniquely fundamental to the success of the human race and society itself; where this absolute right does not affect anyone adversely because it is totally inclusive of both sexes."

Second, David R. Usher[2] elaborates about societal damage: "Deconstruction of fatherhood since 1960 has resulted in very large numbers of young men not becoming a part of society. Approximately half of men are removed from their families, with little or no cause, usually over their strident objections. Their sons often don't finish high school, don't go to college, don't integrate into the workplace, and often end up in the underground economy and prison. This expands the belief that men are bad which, in turn, fortifies radical feminist policy seeking total control of society, family, and economic resources to women. Same-sex marriage would create the perfect gender-segregated two-tiered society in the eyes of feminists. This model is already largely in place due to divorce and the welfare/child-support state. It is only lacking the false "right" for any two women to marry each other. The history of entitled "women's choice" indicates same-sex marriage and civil unions will accelerate the demise of traditional families far beyond the startling numbers we have seen during the past forty years. Social data indicates we are already most of the way down this road, and that we have gone too far driving men out of society. It is time we not only strike down the Massachusetts decision, but take aggressive action reversing anti-family policy in divorce law that brought us to the present-day situation."

Lastly, David R. Gusher[3]: "The concept of "equal protection under the law" requires protection of heterosexual marriage before consideration of anything else. Where "sexual orientation" is predominantly a behavior, it does not classify as a race, sex, or creed for the purpose of seeking this equal protection. Law serves an intentional purpose of intentionally directing individual choices so that a just, free, and equal society can exist. This necessarily means that same-sex marriage is unconstitutional."

Thus, Gay marriage should not be left alone, and should be banned. There is no constitution supporting gay marriages, only for equal protection under the law which does not directly looks towards Marriage.
Debate Round No. 1


Well, I would like to thank my opponent for engaging and arguing so vehemently in an unfettered defense of traditional marriage. Spirited as it was, I do not feel compelled to contest it, because I'm not here to attack it or promote " same-sex " rights. I feel that enough rights have been provided for all with the bill of rights, except for the 11th amendment. We really goofed when we forgot that one.
I intend to provide compelling arguments for a more free society, and to show these fools how America really works, so keep up the same deconstructionist bit and i will walk out of here with my head held high.
Now then, first off, I would like to point out that I am a bona fide practicing christian and I believe what the bible says about homosexuality. It's a definite ( de -finite. ) no -no. I am not contending the definition of marriage, nor am I endorsing any kind of sexually deviant behaviour, but thank you for outlining that. I believe in the sanctity of marriage just like I believe in the sanctity of baseball or oranges or choir practice or in the sanctity of the rifle range or a good game or risk, and I don't want to see it become a vehicle for gay people and their gay lifestyle. As a social conservative, I would like to see people on the whole leading normal, clean-cut, Mom and apple pie, family values -based lives with the wacky stuff and the upheaval relegated to the fringe where it belongs. I fight every day to keep society's traditions and moral fibre intact and holding us together. All that said, I do not endorse social hygeine. I believe in maintaining a normal, moral society and working in our lives and communities to be more wholesome, just, and free. Apart from that, I do not endorse active programs of social control, trying to rout out undesirable attitudes and impose our definition of what society should be on the public mind, though I'm sure many people who actively do this do so with a good intent and are not bad people, per se , but the road to hell is paved with some pretty nasty tar, made in part from good intentions. It is our duty as good Americans to protect society, but we have to realize how twisted things have become, and we must recognize what helps and what hurts. You see, there will always be gay people out there, they come out in full force in places like san fran, and we are certainly seeing more and more of them. Therefore, we cannot expect to rid the land of them by telling them what they're living is a bad lifestyle, even if it's true, because most of them really don't care . That is key. The average gay person isn't too concerned with the average vindictive christian. The " gay agenda " doesn't in any way include adopting what they see as someone else's moral rules and regulations. I believe as a libertarian that the business of other people is to be respected, and none of our business. I put it to you that America works best when it is based upon the founding principles of a completely free society where the only intervention in one's life comes as a result of intervening in the lives of others. I put it to you that the state has no business in a personal, religious thing like marriage and should stay out. We all know you can't legislate morality. You simply can't, not any more than you can prohibit alcohol or cocaine.
Now, to your argument. : It's funny to me how you can engage in your big diatribe about how society is falling apart from hippies in the 60's and feminism and then so suddenly switch to defending the constitution and " equal rights ". Are you talking about the moral decline of society or about protecting American freedom ? America wasn't founded on equal rights, it was founded first and foremost on freedom, which always begets equality. Freedom of association to be who you are and do what you want to do, so long as you do not break the law. In a free society, gay people have the " right " to marry each other, and the freedom to be left alone about it. They can marry a pig if they want, so long as they're not trying to get me into some kind of pig ceremony. I don't know how you can say gay marriage is unconstitutional. There is nothing in the constitution that talks about marriage, so we must assume it is another voluntary association between people, protected by the 1st amendment. Gays don't opress anyone or violate any personal rights by doing whatever they want together.
I agree that there are a group of social engineers working to undermine the moral structure of American life so that they can institute a nightmare planned economic state where human life is treated like a colony of insects to serve the selfish ends of crazy, power-drunk godless control freaks. I'm fully aware of the plan to usurp everything that stands in the way of total socioeconomic control and regimentation by a handful of very bad people. That being said, I still do not understand how we will magically fix everything by imposing our will on a bunch of people who do not really care for it. This only serves to inflame people's wounds and widen the gap between " us " and " them ". If you believe in freedom, you cannot use the law to tell other people what to do. Sinners sin, and if you want to convert them to a more moral way of life, you strike at their heads and hearts, not their actions. All that the cries for mucking up the constitution to shame gays do are to make them want to move to San Francisco and act out. You're just making gay marriage look even cooler and more rebellious.
Thus, I put it to you that it's about time we got off of other people's backs, or we could wind up getting a very nasty sting from the law. Anyone who tries to ban something or inequalize other people publicly is on the wrong side of the constitution and the American way.
If I want to be openly straight, I have to realize that some people will always choose to be openly gay. If you really want to see social hygiene in action, find a time machine, grab a grey uniform, and go back to nazified Germany.


I thank my opponent for an enlightening rebuttal.

Now, my opponent speaks of morality, how that it can't be like a law. For example, you can't determine one person's right from wrong, and the decisions they make. It is also very disrespectful of my opponent to question my argumentation choice, as nothing is prohibiting me from doing so. As long as my arguments explain against Gay marriages, they should be equally looked at for these rounds.

Next, my opponent brings up a "Free society" where homosexuals can marry, and so can heterosexuals. However, what exactly can people do with "freedom" in a free society? Will there be anarchy? Will there be complete and total chaos? My personal belief is that no country can function without order. For example, Washington put down the Whiskey Rebellion with threats of force being used on the South, and the crazed Andrew Jackson established the "Force Bill", allowing Federal Laws to be enforced in the South. While possibly not the best latter example, it shows order is necessary, and Freedom must be limited, something my opponent never seems to bring up.

The First Amendment covers the Freedom of speech and expression, however, no where does it cover what my opponent is saying. To elaborate, to the uneducated masss in a school, freedom of speech would include in it's association the use of cussing to express themselves. However, as well all know, that is not what the First Amendment allows. It lets us express our opinions in a manner that is legal. My opponent must realize that they are completely missinterpreting the text of the First Amendment, and gay marriage is not covered by any part of it.

My opponent believes we should follow the constitution, which "apparently" states we can allow gay marriages. However, each state may have rights, and gay marriage being one of them. It is therefore not let alone, as multiple U.S. states outlawed gay marriage.

My opponent, as wise as he seems, make a rather barbaric comment: 'If you believe in freedom, you cannot use the law to tell other people what to do.' First of all, people who believe in freedom DO implement laws telling other people what to do. Presidents of the past did that; President Andrew Jackson did that, and so did George Washington. The Congress and the legislature do that as well. Second, there cannot be a nation without laws telling people what to do. I bring up the example of Force Bill, Laws directing actions of U.S. Court systems, Laws about Jury Selection, and laws telling the opponent at a certain age he must be released of duties at whatever job he has. To simply believe in freedom and no restrictions telling people what to do is simply a moronic way to discuss a place, especially a government running a country as big as our own.

Lastly, my opponent talks about inequalize people, and about my side being on the wrong end of the Constitution and the American Way? First of, my opponent clearly was not well-educated in the United States History, otherwise, they would've known that the American Way was once the very thing they're against. The American Way was unconstitutional, and considered PRO-Slavery. Pro-Slavery inequalizes people as a law, and follows the American Way. My opponent is therefore being hypocritical, or would they be conceding that the American way IS inequalizing people? That is unclear. I therefore, continue to argue that Gay marriage shouldn't be left alone, and ought to be controlled by the government. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2


note. : I'm much better than this in an ad-hoc, verbal setting, so i plead people will not mind my grammar.
Well, thank you for responding so quickly, even if it is a bit unnerving. ... ....
I find several intellectually dishonest / contraindictory / bunk things in your argument, and I will address them in this round.
I'm fine with your argument, in principle, but so far it falls a bit short of the bar. I maintain that the united states we call America were, are, and should continue to be a free country ( in theory. ) where the heart of the law is the supremacy of the rights of the individual. If you actually read the founding fathers, they were all about the sovereignty of the individual. In this America, the government is kept as small as possible, and there is order to spare, indeed. Compare the more free, wholesome, family-based and less state-centric life of just 100 years ago in America. Thousands of people were not dying on or around the Mexican border. Corruption was actually punished duly and justly. Not the case today.
My opponents has rather deceptively spoken of a place where " homosexuals can marry, and so can heterosexuals ". This implies that either would be restricted in this. No. I am adherent to a philosophy like that of Jefferson or George Washington that promotes free and unrestricted association between indivduals. Freedom to talk, meet, gather, marry, or any other voluntary association, so long as they do not break the law in doing so ( there's your order provided for. ) It is true that most history teachers today will tell you washington and Jackson had to use heavy-Handed measures to control civil dissent. I will assure you that they did not relish it and were very wary of such things becoming a permanent institution. The spirit of America is the idea that people can be self-deterministic and that freedom works. This doesn't mean anarchy, it just means you're not told how to live your or forced to live it in a certain way according to someone else's design.
It is true that the first amendment does not mention gay marriage, it is also true that distruptive speech is not protected by the 1st amendment, that amendment and the constitution exists to protect from the government legally persecuting you for speaking your mind. If you are committing a crime, your speech is protected, but you'll still be legally reprimanded. duh. The first Amendment protects all speech from being curtailed solely on the basis of subject / content, c'mon, man. The first amendment does mention freedom of association, including gays having weddings or any other lawful event in a queer manner ( for that is what they call themselves. ) I'll state this very explicitly, just because the constitution doesn't describe a scenario like a police report, doesn't mean it's a grey area you can use selfishly.
I believe we can follow the constitution, which states the federal government and government as a whole should not intervene on private associations such as marriage, and therefore eliminate the need for lawmaking regarding it. Under my model, states could NOT outlaw gay marriage or any kind of marriage, because we would follow the letter of the law.
And then you seem to say that Sagacious as I am, I am a barbarian. Because I do not believe in unconstitutional and thus illegal legislation, I am barbaric. The laws you mention are mostly bunk laws that run contrary to the spirit and letter of the supreme law of the land. Again, such laws have my full disdain And I would not defend them.
I believe in a limited, unintrusive, proletariat government, not no government.
On the topic of the American way : The American way was never slavery. The American way is moral, and was fixed against the slavery imposed by the british, economically, and socially. Was there slavery after America ? Yes, but there was a whole lot of other [ stuff ], and the founding fathers were very progressive for their time. Perhaps and maybe it was the American way of a few good old boys and slave drivers. The constitution is the American way, Independence, freedom, and all those other goodies. Where do you get slavery from in all that ?
And then you finish up your critique of the American institution of slavery that wasn't in accordance with the American way at all by, let's see ... I'm a hypocrite, unclear,
and therefore you still support that gay marriage should be banned in a manner befitting of the soviets or the stasi.
Why don't we just live n' let live, mm ?
Or we could continue on in a manner that will polarize people and create a two-tier society where people with morals are persecuted and eventually controlled by the government. I fully see that going on right now. Like the hate speech laws, kna 'mean ? sh*t's bad, and you're not helping.
c'mon, ladies and gentlemen, are we this conceited ? Let's come together and work this out without violence.
All government is is a monopoly on force and violence. Ron paul 2012.
: (
: (


TheWheel forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


I understand you're compelled to post an argument, but I think I have you cornered
with your hands tied here.

so, round 4 ?? ??


TheWheel forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Tailypoe 7 years ago
oh, grow a brain, people.
. how 1-dimensional can your thinking be ?
?? have you READ my Argument ?
I abhor homosexuality ! I'm a proud homophobe ! I don't like gay ppl !
I admit it !
that's why I don't want to b be all up in theri business.
If you're just reprimanding me as a gay agenda psuher w/out reading my essay, shame on you.
. .
Posted by phantom 7 years ago
God cleary shows in the bible that he detests, and abhors homosexuality. so how can you as christian be okay with that.
Posted by Tailypoe 7 years ago
Ooh .
Posted by Tailypoe 7 years ago
a given trait ? oh, c'mon, no one would say that about bestiality. " Ah like ****'n pigs, it's a given trait 'gainst what i shouldn't be shown no de-scrimination. ... ....

I like candy. That's a given trait.
i can stop eating candy at anytime, indeed, I almost have.
I like boys, Thaaaaaaaaat's a life descision.

I think we should just leave everybody alone to sort themselves out and remove the controversy.
Posted by Jillianl 7 years ago
Stravis, I'm a Christian and I believe the US should legalize civil unions in the US.

Even if the traditional interpretation of the Bible is that marriage is between a man and a woman, this does not mean that we can't allow homosexuals a union similar but called something different.

The US gov. has two choices that would be constitutional. Take away all monetary and couple benefits attached to traditional so that no couples receive any benefits whatsoever OR provide homosexual couples with the same benefits as traditional marriage if they have formed a civil union. Otherwise, the US is patently discriminating against homosexuals based on orientation, a given trait, not a chosen one. (If legalizing civil unions, they should hold the unions to the same exact standards are civil marriage as well, same divorce laws, etc.)

It is unfair for the gov. to give benefits to couples of the opp. gender and then refuse those same benefits to couples of the same gender. This is a civil issue, not biblical and most certainly not one of morality, however people try to paint the issue . . .
Posted by SpeakYourMind 7 years ago
Hmm, ok. Would you read my latest debate and tell me what you think or be willing to debate me on the topic stravis? There's alot of misunderstanding on gay marriage and my debates shed some light on alot of it.
Posted by stravis76 7 years ago
First off if Tailypoe were a practicing Christian man and believed in the Word he would be taking a stand agianst Gay marriages. The scriptures clearly states in Genesis 2:24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. and Ephisians 5:23-33 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church ...
Biblically speaking, marriage is the lifetime union of a man and a woman, primarily for the purpose of building a family and providing a stable environment for that family.
The Bible clearly identifies marriage as being between a man and a woman. The Bible alone, however, does not have to be used to demonstrate this understanding of marriage. The biblical viewpoint of marriage has been the universal understanding of marriage in every human civilization in world history. History argues against gay marriage. Modern secular psychology recognizes that men and women are psychologically and emotionally designed to complement one another. In regard to the family, psychologists contend that a union between a man and woman in which both spouses serve as good gender role models is the best environment in which to raise well-adjusted children. Psychology argues against gay marriage. In nature/physicality, clearly, men and women were designed to "fit" together sexually. With the "natural" purpose of sexual intercourse being procreation, clearly only a sexual relationship between a man and a woman can fulfill this purpose. Nature argues against gay marriage.
Posted by Freeman 7 years ago
But, but, but...... If the government doesn't ban gay marriage, then polygamy will become legal. After that, people will start having sex with animals. Sooner or later, people will start being able to marry their farm animals. Children will start to grow up thinking that gay people are normal. Heaven forbid that we let that happen.

Who knows what will happen after that. Apples and potatoes might even try to get married. ----->
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Lexicaholic 7 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:42 
Reasons for voting decision: I disagree with both sides, but one side clearly won. Let's get on with it. 1. B/A: Tied. Guess why? 2. Conduct: Pro. Con forfeits. 3. S&G: Tied. Similar levels of acumen. 4. CA: Pro. Pro argued that the law prevails in the United States and that federalism requires respect for state prerogatives, Con argues fascism as a case of ends justifying the means. 5. Con used the most reliable sources in that sources were used.