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

Gay Marriage should be legal in all States.

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/21/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 919 times Debate No: 55194
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)




Marriage is a right to everyone, not to just those who are straight. If we start saying Gays can't be married then what is going to stop us from saying that about Blacks or Immigrants? There is absolutely no reason that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed. Your religion should not have a say in whether or not a man can marry another man, what gives you the power to say that two people perfectly in love can't get married? Would you like to be discriminated against for something you can't control? I wouldn't think so.


I accept the challenge of your debate. I will take the con side of this debate and give reason as to why I disagree that gay marriage should not become legalised in all states.

I'd like to first break down your argument and give my argument against. Then I'll wait for your rebuttle in the next round.

"Marriage is a right to everyone, not to just those who are straight."

I would agree with your statement that marriage is a right to everyone if I believed marriage was indeed a right.I do not believe it to be a right. We, as human beings, have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Marriage does not fall into those categories. This would fall under the Decloration of Independence and there is nothing about happiness and marriage coinciding. Marriage would not fall under these right, gay or straight.

"If we start saying Gays can't be married then what is going to stop us from saying that about Blacks or Immigrants?"

It will never get to a point where we refuse to allow blacks and immigrants to get married. We have already climbed out of that hole
years ago. Race is inherited and homosexuality is not, therefore cannot be desciminated over, that is, if marriage was a right. Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention marriage as a right.;

"There is absolutely no reason that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed."

There is a very good reason. Marriage is not a right. If it were a right, this debate would not be taking place.

"Your religion should not have a say in whether or not a man can marry another man, what gives you the power to say that two people perfectly in love can't get married?

Religion plays a big part in it, actually. This country was founded on religious grounds and principles. Therefore, religion has a lot of say in this debate. And what gives me the power to say two people in love cannot get married? Well, I do have the right to free speech. And so does everyone else. And again, if marriage were a right protected for us in the Constitution, then I wouldn't have a say.

"Would you like to be discriminated against for something you can't control?"

No, I probably would not like it one bit. However, there has never been any scientifically proven data that prove a "gay gene" even exists. Therefore homosexual desires can be controlled.

Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for the acceptance. Hope we have a great friendly debate!
Lets start with response "Therefore homosexual desires can be controlled".

This could not be more wrong, you cannot state this as a fact. Scientist have and still admit that they do not have 100% knowledge on how the brain works[1] so their can be no way to be 100% sure that something is causing people to be gay. Saying a gay person should be able to control their desires would be the same as saying you can control wanting women and just be gay because hey, that's what's cool (as an example). Until more studying is done on the human brain and how it works and functions we cannot give a definitive answer either way.

Next, "Religion plays a big part in it, actually."

It's true, religion plays a part in our government, but it shouldn't. There is a separation of church and state for the reason that our founding fathers never wanted religion to play a role in our government and how we make laws. Here is a quote from Thomas Jefferson, one of our Founding Fathers:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God...."[1]
No one religion should have the ability to change how our government makes laws and discriminate against someone, if we can start discriminating against one group of people that can and will set the dangerous precedent that we can keep discriminating against other groups because we don't agree with what they believe.

"Marriage is not a right. If it were a right, this debate would not be taking place."

The Constitution does not say many rights that are given to you, it would be impossible for the Constitution to state all rights that are given to you[3]. You have the right to vote, although the Constitution actually never states it. There are an endless amount of rights you are entitled to since birth, not only the ones stated in the Constitution. Marriage is most definitely a human right. It is even stated in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights (Article 16)[4].

Our States offer certain benefits to those who are married, whether it be access to their assets when they die without a will or their retirement if an accident were to happen. These benefits are only for those who are legally married and recognized by their respective State and for a State to discriminate against someone for loving a person of the same gender does not show America off as a open and free country. Instead it shows we still discriminate against those we feel are different and that isn't what our country is suppose to represent. We are suppose to be the leaders in Freedom and Democracy, even for the minority.

Even our Federal Government recognizes Gay Marriage due to the repeal of DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act). We should start being a country that represents freedoms for all, heterosexuals and homosexuals, blacks and whites, men and women.



Thank you for your reply. I truly enjoy debating civily on hot topics such as this. I understand that topics like this can create animosity toward each other and really never ends with a true winner I just hope that those voters on the side lines can keep an open mind on this.

"Scientist have and still admit that they do not have 100% knowledge on how the brain works so their can be no way to be 100% sure that something is causing people to be gay."

This is a true statement to some degree. Science has never proven that homosexuality is genetic or if it's just pure choice. There has been studies done suggesting that it is Epigenetics, which revolves around the idea that surrounding forces like friends, family and the way one is raised within a society, that ultimately decides for the individual. Then that would also ultimately come down to choice. Almost everyone raised in this world can ultimately make his/her own decision.

That being said, making gay marriage legal in all 50 states would still be wrong if one follows the Constitution. A document this country was founded proudly upon.

We all know that race is genetic. It is scientifically proven that if two white parents have a child, that child will be white. Two black parents have a child, that child will be black. Etc, etc. Sexual preferences have not been scientifically proven to be genetic. So in this sense, giving black people the right to finally vote and do eveything white people were allowed to do, is the right thing. This brings me to my next point.

"You have a right to vote, although the Constitution actually never states it."

Voting is not a right, it is a privilage, just as driving and marriage are both privilages. Our rights include freedom of speech (which we are excersizing right now with this debate), our right to protect ourselves from intruders, which incldude personal attacks, government intrusion, and attacks that involve our personal property. We have the right to a quick and speedy trial and a right to an unbias jury. These are all rights that every man, woman and child are assured of.

"Marriage is most definitely a human right. It is even stated in the United Nations Decloration of Human Rights."

Yes it is, however it is not a human right as stated in the Constitution of the United States. Are we not debating the right of homosexuals being legally able to marry in all 50 states of this country? The United Nations is a multi-country representation and does not reflect on the individual Constitution of any one country. Marriage is not a basic human right in this country and the United States government does not have the authority to declare marriage as legal. The United States government has two jobs; defend the constitution and protect the borders of this country from all enemies both foreign and domestic. Not decide who gets married and who does not.

And yes, America is an open and free country. This is why the government is not discriminating against homosexuals. Unlike during the 60's and earlier with african-americans, homosexuals are not being hosed down, bitten by dogs, beaten, and segragated by their government. They are being told they cannot marry, which is not a human right ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION. The same Constitution that is supposed to define OUR country, not the United Nations.

Marriage is also defined in the Bible as between one man and one woman. I understand that many don't consider the Bible a reliable source, however the Bible was written by man long before anything else in modern age was written. It (the Bible) defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman a long time ago. We cannot just redefine or rewright the definition of words to fit our agenda or ideas.;

Debate Round No. 2


That statement that scientist don't understand the brain fully is true[1]. Not to some degree, but its 100% true. With that, we really can't say right now why some people like their own gender over the opposite one. And if we don't really understand it then we can't just start saying they can just make the choice to turn heterosexual. From personal experience I know homosexual men and women who say that they can't choose that they are naturally attracted to their gender and feel no sexual feelings for the opposite gender. The argument that one can control their sexuality is one with no 100% proven science behind it, only hypothesis and theories.
"That being said, making gay marriage legal in all 50 states would still be wrong if one follows the Constitution. A document this country was founded proudly upon."

The Constitution was founded to protect our rights and liberties. It protects the rights of the Majority as well as the Minority (in this case homosexuals). The way we interpret the Constitution will play a vital role here, we know that there are an endless amount of Natural Rights you are born with, the writers of the Constitution could never have wrote and fit those in.

Our Government, on both Federal and State levels are not allowed to discriminate one group from another, that's in the Constitution. Amendment 14[2] states that no citizen will be denied privileges or immunities of US Citizenship, and as you had just stated Marriage is a privilege that would mean States cannot make laws denying a homosexual the privilege to marry due to their sexual orientation.
I brought up the United Nations solely to show that it is considered a Natural Right by many countries, including America. We adopted this draft on what Human Rights are, we as a country cannot say that we believe that Marriage is a right for all humans but in our own land not practice what we say we believe.

Our Federal Government does not discriminate against homosexuals, some of our State Governments due though, they give benefits to married couples of opposite sex, but not to those of the same sex that is discrimination. Depriving people of certain benefits that can help them and their families is just as bad as beating them and turning the dogs loose on them. It will only cause hurt and anger, it will make OUR own citizens feel like they are less because they have a different belief then you, they will feel like they must change or even move because of who they are.
Again, our Constitution has always been here to protects the citizen and make EVERYONE equal.
Marriage is a legally recognized social contract between two individuals, religion has no say anymore in whether or not one can be married. I am an Atheist, I will marry the person who I want, whether your religion says I can or not. Religion is very discriminatory, that is probably one of the reasons our Founding Fathers and Framers (men who wrote our Constitution) wanted State and Church separated.
More and more Judges in many States are interpreting that not allowing homosexuals to marry is against the Constitution. One State Judge ruled that it was unconstitutional to ban gay marriage[3]. Some of his quotes:
"This is an unconstitutional attempt to narrow the definition of equality."
"The exclusion of a minority for no rational reason is a dangerous precedent."

And he is right in everything he states. Banning gay marriage is an attempt to narrow our definition of equality and doing this does set a dangerous precedent.



Do all 50 states really NEED to legalise gay marriage? I say no. I say no for several reasons.

1) Marriage, as defined not only by ancient text, but by most societies, is one man and one woman. We cannot rewright the definition of a word to fit our agenda or ideals.

2) A species needs to procreate in order to survive as a society. If they don't, the species eventually dies.

3) It is not the government's business what couples do in their homes or who they prefer to have sex with. Therefore, it is not right for the government to decide who gets married or who does not. Legalizing gay marriage is not the government's job.

4) Marriage is a privilage, not a right. We do have a right to happiness, but marriage does not fall under that right. There is no gaurantee that one will be happy in their marriage.

5) Children need to be raised by a mother and a father. Depriving them of one or the other is wrong. It has been proven that children need both sexes as parents. Not that a gay couple can't raise a child, but studies have been done and they show that it is healthier for a child to be raised by a mother and a father.;

I believe if we allow gay marriage, our society and country will eventually die. Since homosexuals cannot reproduce and there must be an adequate amount of procreation within a society to survive, I do not believe gay marriage should be legal.

My opponent says religion has no say whether two people can be married. I say it most certainly does have a say. Most marriages are
performed in a church. And even more are performed by a pastor, priest, or rabbi. To say that religions have no say in the matter is false. Leaders of most religions will choose to marry a couple or not marry them, based on their convictions. And if they feel a couple should not be married, they won't marry them.

A government should have no power to force a marriage. It is not the government's job to do so.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 4 years ago
It is insulting that people believe that "God" is the true authority to recognize whether a marriage is or isn't true. Saying that means that all marriages, regardless of whether they were a union between heterosexuals or homosexuals, have to have been conducted by people that are faithful believers of "God. "
Marriage is no more than the legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship, not a union created by the power of "God." Religion should not factor into it.
Posted by Motormouth 7 years ago
Someone could be born attracted to the opposite sex. True but, It is wrong (in a true believers eyes) to act upon that fantasy. Marriage wasn't instituted by GOD but, when we marry we call GOD as our witness to this marriage. GOD doesn't approve of homosexuals therefore, The marriage is "fake" ( what I mean is this marriage isn't all truth if GOD doesn't approve and you call him down as a witness.)
Posted by LunaLoutre 7 years ago
I support pro. "The pursuit of happiness" (as stated in the united states constitution) is a highly interpretable phrase. I personally feel that gay marriage falls under this phrase because the marriage of a man or a women would fall under these clauses. Also, think about it. Is it morally correct to deny people of basic liberties just because you think they are strange or that a religious organization tells you?
Posted by rachieandthewaves 7 years ago
You say that people have a right to the pursuit of happiness but not a right to marriage. Marriage can bring people happiness. If two people love and deserve each other, and want nothing more than to marry, there should be nothing that should stop them. When Con says "control their desires", I believe that this is a fancy way of saying that they should just conform to what everybody else wants them to be.
Gay marriage should and will be legalised in all states.
Posted by JasminJasmin 7 years ago
Marriage by law (if for homosexuals or non-believers of God) is nothing more then paper, any true believer of God would know the real meaning of marriage and the law is not the important part of it, why does anyone desire to marry by law/paper? I simply don't understand the need or desire, when in our day, it is almost meaningless to this generation anyway, the divorce rate is at an all time high and marriage (by law) is not going to keep any couple (gay or straight) together, only two determined people can do that with God as their foundation.
Posted by Renagade 7 years ago
I support the pro, I disagree with the con whole heartedly. But it is clear the con has won the first round. I am interested to see the pro's response.
Posted by Blazescorch2 7 years ago
Once the "Con" side said that homosexuality is not inherent, I was out. Auto-lose executed.
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.