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

It is a good thing that gay marriage is now legalized in the United States

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: 7/13/2015 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 687 times Debate No: 77592
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)




Hello - and thank you for joining my debate. This debate will have 3 rounds for argument with the following setup:
1st round: Opening statement and argument
2nd round: Counterarguments
3rd round: Final counterarguments and conclusion / final statement

I look forward to a friendly and detailed discourse from both sides.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ROUND 1: OPENING STATEMENT: Based on various examples and evidence on the issue, it is clear that the legalization of gay marriage is a good thing. I will now precede to explain those reasons:

1. Equality: Gay and lesbian people are people just like the rest of us - in many ways such as wanting to be married. Denying them their right to marry is as absurd as denying a heterosexual couple to marry because we are all citizens of America - and under the constitution we all deserve equality and to be treated fairly (There are 1,138 benefits, rights and protections available to married couples in federal law alone, according to a General Accounting Office assessment made in 2004) ~ That will not happen if the government and churches have the ability to pick and choose who can and who can not have these basic rights. Anyone in America is allowed to marry who they love - and to deny them their right to marry is completely unconstitutional.

2.Rights: (Since 1888 the US Supreme Court has declared 14 times that marriage is a fundamental right for all, according to the American Foundation for Equal Rights). Under the supreme court and constitution, it is a human (and civil) right for a citizen to have the ability to get married - the supreme court never made any restrictions or rules for marriage - other than allowing people to marry who they choose.

3. Families / Children: (Marriage is not only for procreation, otherwise infertile couples or couples not wishing to have children would be preventedfrom marrying). People who make the argument of "procreation" or "children" are not listening to the rights that follow marriage. It is not a a requirement that every married couple needs to have a child or a family - that is strictly the couple's choice. That is why adoption and sperm donations are also choices for such couples if they want a family and are unable to else wise.

4. Financial Benefits: Marriages - whether gay or straight - cost money. If only straight couples are allowed to get married, then the government will not receive as much money from marriages as they could. Think about it, more rules and restrictions that are places upon the laws of marriage will result in less people getting married. Less people getting married = less money being spent on marriage = less profit to go towards the government.

5. Good Parents: Gay couples have a reputation to be some of the best parents out there - experiments have prove that homosexual families are a lot more happy and successful than heterosexual families. ( A June 2014 peer-reviewed University of Melbourne study showed that children raised by same-sex parents score about six percent higher than the general population on measures of general health and family cohesion. A study published ineptness on June 7, 2010 found that children of lesbian mothers were rated higher than children of heterosexual parents in social and academic competence and had fewer social problems. A July 2010 study found that children of gay fathers were "as well-adjusted as those adopted by heterosexual parents." ). The evidence proves my previous explanation.

6. Humiliation: Imagine you are a child of a homosexual couple - and you are in a country which does not allow homosexual marriages. Now imagine that all your friends and kids at school know about your parents and make fun of you - not so fun right? Making this form of marriage illegal will put the burden of humiliation on the children of homosexual couples - and even the couples themselves.

7. Health Benefits: A 2010 analysis published in the american Journal of Public Health found that after their states had banned gay marriage, gay, lesbian and bisexual people suffered a 37% increase in mood disorders, a 42% increase in alcohol-use disorders, and a 248% increase in generalized anxiety disorders.

8. No negative change for heterosexual marriages: There will be no changes that will effect straight couples in a negative way - in fact, research has shows that it would only effect them in a positive way: (A study published on Apr. 13, 2009 in Social Science Quarterly found that "[l]aws permitting same-sex marriage or civil unions have no adverse effect on marriage, divorce, and abortion rates, [or] the percent of children born out of wedlock." A Nov. 2011 study by UCLA's Williams Institute reported that the rate at which legally recognized same-sex couples (in marriages or civil unions, etc.) end their relationships is 1.1% on average, while 2% of married different-sex couples divorce annually.). Keeping the legalization will only help further stabilize heterosexual couples.

9. Lower Divorce Rates: Same-sex couples have lower divorce rates then heterosexual couples - it is a prove fact (refrence the evidence above). Banning gay marriage actually increases divorce rates for even heterosecual couples: (Massachusetts, which became the first US state to legalize gay marriage in 2004, had the lowest divorce rate in the country in 2008. Its divorce rate declined 21% between 2003 and 2008. Alaska, which altered its constitution to prohibit gay marriage in 1998, saw a 17.2% increase in its divorce rate over the same period. The seven states with the highest divorce rates between 2003 and 2008 all had constitutional prohibitions to gay marriage.). These statistics prove the negative impact of not having gay marriage legalized.

10. Religion: Religion is not allowed to have an effect of marriage because - marriage is supported by all religions as a whole, and some religions support it while others do not. Under those circumstanes. the only way to make marriage a fair right for people of all religions is to allow people in the religions of those who favor same-sex marriage, to be able to get married to whomever they want. In fact, many bishops and priests are in agreement with same-sex marriage. Gene Robinson, openly gay former Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire, stated in Sep. 2012: "Scripture says where love is, there is God also. And they [religious people] see that love in our families, and I think people can't help but be supportive." Priests such as Robinson show that mostly not all priests and religious figures are against homosexual marriages. Polls taken from various religious groups also support this, such as a poll taken from people who follow the Jewish faith: (Judaism, which comprises about 80% of the American Jewish population, endorses same-sex marriage, and the Central Conference of American Rabbis has supported gay marriage since 1996.).

I rest my case for now.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I am looking forward to my opponent's opening statement and argument - and I look forward to viewing the argument of someone with the opposite view as me so I can see how people in society stand on this issue. Thank you for your time ~ Sara



This is a founding argument that has a lot of emotion behind it because each side is dead set against it.
I want to first off point out that I am against gay marriage personally, now that does not mean I can demand everyone that I know to believe like me, but I shouldn't not fight for what I believe. some call it hate speech to be against gay marriage and I don't see much hate in my own life to gay people I have friends, family member's that are gay and I still love them, doesn't mean I agree with them on life decisions it means I still respect them as people. now that that's said is it a good thing that gay marriage is now legalized in America ? I think you have to ask yourself what is marriage? marriage is and has always been between one man and one wife to make fertile children. it's against the moral and religious rights of other people to serve or marry a gay couple. it's not discrimination if you're trying to change the nature of Marriage if we can both agree that marriage was established as between one man and one women before or in the past. then we can draw the conclusion that if you change that to fit the need of an outside group, or any group then it is discrimination to say that me and this rock are not allowed to get married even though we love each other right? you would have to fit that status quota to fit everyone and everything from humans to rocks. no matter what in conclusion this is bad for the united states and economically destructive. it'll open the floodgates for a lot of other issues which should be interesting to listen to.
Debate Round No. 1


As I have said before, some religions are against the practice of same-sex marriage but others do not. And marriage is suppost to support all religions equally - and the only way to do that is to allow two people who love each other (whether a heterosexual couple or a homosexual couple) the right to marry who they love. If you are against it because of the religion you follow - then too bad. IT DOES NOT EFFECT YOU IN ANY WAY. It does not make you unable to be married to someone of a different gender, it does not make you gay yourself, it does not make your religion open to gays, it just makes marriage fair for everyone. And to take that away would not be a good name for the country that we live in - considering our country primarily focuses on equality.


being forced to believe in something and openly allow something that I feel strongly about does effect me? and it is rude to say otherwise.
having gay marriage legalized does effect businesses and people in everyday life. if you are against gay marriage because of you're religion should you have to legally support the gay couple in their decision to marry? even though it stands completely against you're Religion? No, it's unconstitutional
you stated that gay marriage was good for the economy, that's a completely false statement. There's no definition of marriage anymore.
the millions of gay couples that want to get married now don't have to pay as much in taxes and could actually receive benefits from the government which means I (the taxpayer) now am supporting millions of gay couples that receive tax breaks for being married, it'll cost the government millions of dollars and will not help the economy in revenue as a state or a country. it might help wedding businesses that support gay marriage but that's it.
The fact is that gay marriage isn't good for this country and will lead this country down a very wrong path.
Debate Round No. 2


You are not being forced to believe in anything - you can still stick to your homophobic views. But it does not effect you whatsoever - them being married does not make you gay, it doesn't make you any less a part of your religion then you are. It has none of your concern unless you are gay yourself. It not unconstitutional to make this legal because it would be unconstitutional to deny some people the same right that others have - it is called equality, and America wants us all to be equal. You must have not read my statement - it does not cost you money for marriages. The parents and couples pay for that themselves. MORE MARRIAGES EQUALS MORE PROFIT that is just common sense and I do not need any statistics to back it up either - because it is a true statement. And since about 5-10% of the population is LGBT -
There is a lot more heterosexual couples who are asking for benefits from the government. Because there is nine times more straight people than gay people.


It effects the nation as a whole. if effects me personally because I don't believe in gay marriage and now I will be forced to par-take in their decisions which is against my own religion especially if i own a business. the decision is economically destructive because now it opens the pathway for other groups to say they have to have their equal share. for example incest, polygamy, will be outside groups that now demand their equal rights. nature drew the line that we are suppose to follow and we are straying away from it. which is making a nation which our founding fathers wanted to be moral, unmoral. equal rights isn't an argument in this case because you are trying to change the definition that is set in stone as nature has intended. i understand the point of view of allowing gay marriage to happen. i understand they feel like second class citizens, so do many other groups or ideas people have and if you want to scream equal rights, then you have to speak for equal rights for everyone which include perverse acts that are illegal. that's why i am against this decision and know that this decision is destructive for maybe not this country but the institution of marriage which i am trying to protect. as a democrat bill Clinton signed into law the defense of marriage act which opened a floodgate of lawsuits and so will this if there's people like me that feel this strongly about this issue, it probably won't go away
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Soccerloving 1 year ago
it's interesting hearing people argue about how same sex marriage goes against the definition of marriage or changes the definition, but what's the big deal when there are still people throwing the word gay around for things that not even close to its definition, if something goes 'wrong' or something like that some people go "that's so gay". The definition of gay is to be a homosexual person, it also defines to be used to describe something vibrant in other words it's also a synonym of happy And yet people use the word for the wrong things. Whereas the definition of marriage Is for some people 'the legal recognition of a man and a women's Union as partners.' To shorten the definition it becomes 'the Union of 2 consenting adults.' Basically same sex marriage doesn't Actually go against the definition of marriage, nor does it actually change it. As some people insist that marriage is between a man and a women means that for them same sex marriage only alters the definition slightly, not change it completely. It's still marriage, it's not like we are stabbing a person and calling it marriage, which sounds ridiculous right? Yeah well stuffing up a worksheet and calling it gay is pretty ridiculous, so calm down with the whole definition of marriage thing ok, it's still marriage regardless of genders.
Posted by kkal 1 year ago
You have to ask yourself why is it they insist on the word marriage. If it is deemed a civil union or some other term with all the rights and benefits of marriage then why insist on the definition change? It is because using the word marriage implies a natural or normal condition which the gay community has a deep down unspoken longing to be part of. It is why they accept "homosexual behavior" in some animals as a direct proof a natural biological sexual act. The best thing normal society can do is redefine union between a man and women as a "Natural Marriage" When I get married naturally I will want all my relevant documents and communications to spell out the term "Natural Marriage". This can be done in every state in the union by the ballot box.
Posted by Boesball 1 year ago
I'm not entering this debate, but I do have to point out that as a libertarian, I think people should be able to marry whoever they want. I also think that the government should never issue any sort of marriage license. If you leave marriage to the private sector, this solves all the issues. The people who want to marry animals can, and the people who want to marry objects can. The people who want to marry opposite sex people can, and the people who want to marry same sex people can. They can get a contract with that person like any other agreement, and they can call it whatever they want. The flaw with government's involvement in marriage is that they can ban certain types of marriage and they can make stuff like same sex marriage a protected right. Therefore, the government can use force to make people accept this reality. The government will force churches to marry two gay people even if that church doesn't agree with it. Already, wedding cake shop owners have been fined for not serving gay weddings. This is just as tyrannical as a same-sex marriage ban. The recent decision by the SCOTUS isn't good because it didn't fix anything. It just transferred who is getting hurt by the government from gays to people against gays. The government shouldn't be making this decision in the first place. It's up to individuals.
Posted by sara_ann_dee 1 year ago
@optimist @lsum: You guys forgot to check my citations at the bottom of the debate... I only used quotes and explained them.
Posted by Lsumichiganfan 1 year ago
PLAGARISM!!!! watch out con!
Posted by TheOpinionist 1 year ago
TheOpinionist plagarism check
Posted by TheOpinionist 1 year ago
Copy pasted your argument into a plagiarism checker. Go back to Tumblr until you learn to make your own arguments.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Gondun 1 year ago
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro tried to keep things civil and organized in the first argument, but then it all devolved into what seemed more like a confused shouting match, so Pro gets conduct and S&G. Con failed to address most of the Pro arguments and Pro did a decent job defending the ones that were attacked. I wouldn't consider to be the most reliable, but seeing as it was the only source directly cited, Pro gets that point as well. In the future, it would be helpful if you had links to the studies you mention, but don't specifically cite.