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

The Government should get out of marriage altogether.

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/10/2013 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 972 times Debate No: 32325
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (1)
Votes (1)




With all this debate recently about weather the Government should allow gay marriage or not, I would like to propose they get out of marriage entirely. My opponent can take any position contrary to this. The first round is for acceptance.
Good luck.


Seems that this will be a good debate.I salute you for a good debate topic.

My opponent said that:The first round is for acceptance.

I accept this debate.

Please start the round 2 with your argument Mr.BennyW. :D
Debate Round No. 1


I thank my opponent for accepting the debate
Government should get out of marriage for a number of reasons.
Originally, marriage licenses were invented to prevent interracial marriage so if the purpose is supposed to be to prevent discrimination it has failed right from the beginning. [1]
It both combines the role of church and state and put them in conflict; a violation of the first amendment, and taking the power to marry away from the government would solve this problem.
According to the government the marriage license is a contract where the government is the primary party and the husband and wife are only secondary, it also gives government control over the children. [2]
Thanks again to my opponent and I await my opponent"s response.



Thanks my friend :D

Since this is the first round of posting,I will just present my case :)

God"s plan for sexuality and marriage:
**"So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them."**
"Genesis 1:27 (NKJV)

"And the LORD God said, "It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him." Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him. And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. Then the rib which the LORD God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. And Adam said: "This is now bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man." Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed."

When God created a partner for Adam He created Eve"not another Adam. This means that perfect partnership requires some level of difference as well as a level of similarity so great that Adam could cry out loudly, "This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh". Sexual intimacy between a man and a woman is the normal method of male/female bonding (emotionally and physically) because it corresponds to the design of our bodies and because it is the normal means by which offspring are created.

***"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator "made them male and female," and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh"? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." (Matt 19:4-6)***

Jesus taught that marriage is between "male and female". There is no point in trying to get Jesus to sanction same sex marriages. He doesn"t. According to Jesus, there is no such thing as marriage between the same-sex. It doesn't exist in God's sight. According to Genesis chapter one and three, marriage is a lifetime commitment made between one man and one woman for the purpose of "being fruitful and multiplying" (Gen 1:27). Same sex partners can never multiply together. They are by nature unable to fulfill the command given to the entire married race.

***"And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning "made them male and female,""
"Matthew 19:4 (NKJV)

***"But from the beginning of the creation, God "made them male and female.""***
"Mark 10:6 (NKJV)

When Jesus was asked questions about marriage he went straight back to the defining passages in Genesis that say that marriage is between male and female and is meant to be life long. He saw the Creation accounts in Genesis as authoritative in His day. And what is authoritative for Jesus is authoritative for Christians also. While Jesus did not specifically teach on homosexuality, His establishment of the Genesis passages as the fundamental passages on marriage (even more fundamental than the Law) leaves no doubt as to the outcome.

***Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Cor 6:9-10)***

Homosexual offenders are placed in the same category as adulterers, prostitutes and thieves. They are all wrong. I couldn"t imagine the apostle approving of homosexual marriages, can you?

Not only does the Bible, by default, forbid same sex marriages, but tradition and nature prohibits it also. The concept is against every tradition known to the human race and is obviously against nature. Allowing same sex marriages will devalue real marriages, open a Pandora box of other issues such as polygamy, incest marriages, child marriages, and even foolish marriages between men and animals. Same sex partners will demand equal rights to adopt children, so we would be forced to put children in harms way to learn this lifestyle. As Pope Francis properly said that children adopted by gay partners would amount to "discrimination against children."

Where will the line be drawn? Let's allow reason, common sense, and our inner sense of right and wrong help us to make the right choices, not withstanding the clear biblical teaching on this subject.

America is at a crossroad concerning same sex marriages. Runaway mayors, disguising themselves as equal rights activists, have forced this issue by illegally performing marriages for homosexuals. Although the "Defense of Marriage" act gives the states the right to reject same sex marriages performed in other states, this issue must be settled once and for all with a constitutional amendment.

In the past, slavery was a state issue, but eventually, it was clear that the Federal government had to put an end to it. Civil war broke out because other states wanted to maintain their right to have slavery. The issue of marriage cannot be left to each state to decide. This issue is so fundamental to society that congress and three fourths of the states should settle the issue for our country.

In the end, the state has only one reason why they should be involved in marriage laws at all, and that is to seek to promote in its marriage law the best setting to nurture children. The state should recognize that the best setting is between a mother and father. Children have a better chance to turn out better if they are raised by their parents. So if a couple divorces the state tries to make sure that both parents stay involve in the children's lives through visitation rights and through child support. On the other hand, gay couples will never have biological children together. If there is biological children then the children will rightfully belong to the one biological parent, thus the state should stay out of that relationship.

~If two men "feel a connection" they can do what they want with that feeling. If they want to move in and buy a house together, fine. If they want to make a commitment to each other, then they are free to do that, but they don't need the government to get involve in their relationship, because that is not in the state's interest. Love and emotional connection is outside the scope of the state's interest. The state should care about the biological children created in the union, and children can only be born with two heterosexual couples.

*We could love same gender as we love woman but since same sex marriage prohibits by God we should follow.

*You're saying that "The Government should get out of marriage altogether" you're violating the rule of Jesus.We could love same gender as much as we want if but since marriage is for christians;and since christians prevents same sex marriage,same sex marriage should be prohibited.

I'm hoping for a good refute my friend :)

Debate Round No. 2


I think my opponent is a bit confused. He appears to be under the impression that I am arguing in favor of homosexual marriage or am trying to get the church to sanction it. That is not at all the case.
Rather I am arguing that we should understand the proper role of government and the church. Everything my opponent said about enforcing heterosexual marriage should be handled by the church. Nowhere in the Bible does it say it is the government"s job to do so.
My opponent briefly brings up divorce, in fact I would attribute part of the reason that divorce rates are so high is because the church isn"t doing what they should to make marriages last since they have allowed it to be taken over by the government.
If you are married in the eyes of God why would you need a piece of paper from the government saying so? The church and government are in conflict in this regard. The Government is trying to do what should be a private matter between a church or private establishment and two people entering into a union. The Establishment clause of the first Amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". [1] Telling the church how to do their job is unconstitutional. The Free exercise clause continues with, "Nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof", [2] giving government control of marriage opens up the possibility that they could interfere with a church"s free exercise of their beliefs. Both of these clauses are essential to understanding the role of religion and the government in America. Getting the government out of marriage is the only solution that does not violate either clause.
I would also like my opponent to address the points I brought up in the previous round.
I thank my opponent and await his response.


ameyav forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


Not only has my opponent forfeited the last round but it also appears he has deleted his account.
This being the case I extend all my arguments.


ameyav forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
Source one round two is false, its information and history is blatantly lying. first marriage laws were instituted in the UK, where a marriage would only be recognized if first declared and accepted by the church, and after proper ceremony was committed. In 1837, marriage certificates began to be required.

In the US, we already had UK laws constituted hundreds of years ago. At that time, common law marriages (simply one man and one woman) were allowed. It was not until AFTER this that interracial marriages were banned. This is unjust because the purpose of marriage was actually invalidated by this (procreation and child rearing). So, based on the arguments used by most marriage theorists today, both liberal and conservative, the interracial ban was unjust.

And the fact privatizing marriage increases the size of government is notable, too.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by thett3 4 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Obvious