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

Should gay marriage be legal in the U.S.

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/9/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 520 times Debate No: 54346
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (3)




Please tell me your opinion of why gay marriage shouldn't be legal in America.


First, the Burden of proof is on my opponent because most states in the U.S. don't recognize Homosexual marriages [1].

1. Marriage is more than love
"Mutual affection and companionship between partners is a common, although not universal, feature of marriage" [2]. "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." [2] 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 is the social function of marriage and helps explain why the government rightly recognizes and addresses this aspect of our social lives." [2] The procreative argument was held up in many courts [3][8] such as Baker v. Nelson [4], Jones v. Hallahan [5], Singer v. Hara [6], Citizens for Equal Protection v. Bruning [7]. Showing that defining marriage is constitutional. Marriage should not be extended to same-sex couples because homosexual relationships have nothing to do with procreation. Allowing gay marriage would only further shift the purpose of marriage from producing and raising children to adult gratification. Marriage should remain the union of one man and one woman because marriage is more than just love.

2. Marriage Historically
"Although certain aspects of the institution of marriage have varied from society to society, it has universal functions. These universal functions are:
1. Complementing nature with culture to ensure the reproductive cycle;
2. Providing children with both a mother and a father whenever possible:
3. Providing children with their biological parents whenever possible;
4. Bringing men and women together for both practical and symbolic purposes; and
5. Providing men with a stake in family and society." [2]

The Netherlands was the first country to recognize Homosexual marriages in 2001 [9].

No society has established same-sex marriage as a cultural norm. Leading linguists, lawyers, philosophers, and social scientists have always understood marriage to be uniquely concerned with regulating naturally procreative relationships between men and women and providing for the nurture and care of the children who result from those relationships" [2].

Now dealing with interracial Marriage.
The First Anti-miscegenation (Anti-Mixed Marriage) Laws was passed in Virginia in 1691 [10]. It is important to note the colonial Virginia started in 1607 [11]. So, there was a period of 84 years before these laws ever existed. Also, . Nine states never had any Anti-miscegenation laws [12]. Further, "no nation-wide law against racially mixed marriages was ever enacted" [13], and no state recognized Homosexual marriages until 2004 [14]. It is also important to note that "The laws in U.S. states were established to maintain 'racial purity' and white supremacy" [13], and laws defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman were not meant to ensure heterosexual supremacy, or anything like why interracial marriage was.

Concluding, marriage should not be redefined because it isn't what marriage was intended for.

3. The Slippery Slope
If love is all that matters in marriage then other restrictions on marriage like Polygamy bans, Incest prohibitions, Age restrictions should be allowed too 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. [15] Also, recently a Federal Judge in Utah struck down polygamy ban as unconstitutional, and he relied on a line of reasoning utilized to impose same-sex marriage. [16] "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 homosexual “marriage” advocates, only love and companionship are 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 homosexuals 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?" [17]. 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 legalised in all but name" [18] In 2005 a civil union of three people were "married" [18]. Concluding, marriage should not be redefined because it will lead to more redefinitions of marriage.

This will conclude my opening round of arguments, and I hope my opponent makes a thoughtful response.


Debate Round No. 1


First of all I would like to thank my opponent for making a well thought out response, also I apologize if my posts are short I just think that it is simply matter of human rights and should be black and white.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." this famous quote from The Declaration of Independence shows that as Americans if our happiness is to marry someone and it is a mutual consensual relationship then they should be able to do that. Also married people get tax breaks that should be available to all people, not just straight people.
Once again I'm sorry that this is so short, but hopefully it makes enough sense to get my point across.


I thank my opponent for his interesting response.

First, my opponent claims that this is an issue of human rights, but this is not true. Society can choose to endorse certain types of sexual arrangements and give support in the form of benefits to these arrangements. Marriage was created to allow society to support heterosexual couples in procreation and society can choose not to give the same benefits to same-sex couples [1]. My opponent has yet to prove it is a human right.

Second, my opponent claims that because of the phrase in the declaration of independence it means Homosexual marriage should be recognized because it pursues happiness, and was consensual. The is a perplexing comment because that phrase also mentions these rights were endowed by their creator, God, and religion often opposes not only Homosexual marriage, but homosexuality as well. Further, your rights end when they harm someone else, such as the case of Murder. You may be happier they are dead, but you violated the other person's right to life. Homosexual marriage has harms too. My opponent also mentions tax breaks, this is part of the first harm on society that taxpayers, consumers, and businesses would be forced to subsidize homosexual relationships. Second, Freedom of conscience and religious liberty would be threatened. We have seen this happen already in many states that decided to recognize such marriages, such as photographers in New Mexico, or catholic adoption agencies. Also, Fewer children would be raised by a married mother and father. Many sociological studies show that a married mother an father are the best environment for children [2][3]. The biggest losers here are children.

I hope that my opponent will respond to all criticism previous and current in the next round.


Debate Round No. 2


wdywfm forfeited this round.


It is rather unfortunate that my opponent forfeited the final round, and didn't response to any points.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by wdywfm 3 years ago
Sorry I didn't respond to the last round I had AP exams no stop
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Wylted 3 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: FF
Vote Placed by lannan13 3 years 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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by William.Burnham 3 years 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:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm totally for gay marriage, but Con just did a better job all around presenting his case. Hope Pro learns from this and grows his skills as I think his head is in the right place.