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

Should gay marriage be legal?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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: 3/24/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 835 times Debate No: 72229
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)




Should gay marriage be legalized across the United States?


Not to sound like a contrarian, but I feel like same-sex marriage should be illegal on a governmental basis, as well as on a civil basis. I will briefly state my issues with same-sex marriage below. I look forward to doing this debate with you and wish you the best of luck.

First of all, I am not a religious nut who thinks that same-sex marriage is wrong on a moral basis. There are thousands if not tens of thousands of marriages that have at least some dysfunction. Do I understand where gay couples are coming from, yes I do. Two people of the same-sex should have every right to get married if they truly love each other, at least more of a right then two different-sex couples who hate each other. I've known gay couples and I know that's how a lot of them feel. I am completely okay with this on a moral basis.

The issue isn't the morality of it, we're in modern times with modern technology and modern ideas. The issue I have is that a few pages of text in a book written almost two millenniums ago said that gay marriage is a general "no", and even today; it's almost the largest civil rights movement since desegregation.

I feel like this civil rights movement turns same-sex marriage and peoples view on it, into a form of racism and I don't want to be the one to stand for that. I feel like the same-sex couples could be possibly benefiting from this, and I don't mean that in a bad way.

For example, I've known a gay couple who no-one said anything to, as there was nothing different. I fear that if this movement really goes through, then gay couples may feel obligated to get reprimands as if they deserve it. I'm not saying this on a stereotypical basis because I've known someone who had been that way.

I feel like if same-sex marriage are going to be allowed, then they should not get special treatment that different-sex couples wouldn't get. The way I've seen it, I feel like this is going to be a possibility. That's not to say that I think all gay couples are that way, but it is to say that some may benefit if this goes through.

Now, on a legal basis, creating a law and passing a bill is an extremely difficult process. Especially since this is a civil matter, then there's a good chance that it would be sent through the houses and an Act or Bill will be passed if it does go through...The issue is, there are thousands of bills sent to the floor that are pigeonholed everyday that have just as good an argument as the one on same-sex marriage.

Even if it did get all the way to the senate, the religious senators would become a filibuster until everyone in the Senate is tired and the filibusters get there way, so even if every one wanted same-sex marriage, it would be extremely difficult to actually get it through. The president can also veto a law if he finds that it's not good enough, and then it's one big mess.

To summarize, I understand if people think it's morally wrong for people to be against same-sex marriage, because I am for same-sex marriage if we can do it based solely on morals. It's just not that simple, it is extremely difficult to make things legal unless the government can allow each state to make their own laws for it. Aside from that, this should not be a civil rights movement and I feel if same-sex couples get married, they should not get special treatments.....
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for accepting my debate.
I read your argument and admit you have a lot of solid points, including some I agree with. You're right, it will be a long and difficult proccess for the act/bill/law to be published, but it should be one we should take. Not allowing same sex marriage is taking away the couples rights for marriage benefits such as joint ownership. Besides, not allowing gay marriage is minor discrimination against them.
Now you're right, I feel gays shouldn't make it feel like they have special treatment. However, I have lived in a state where gay marriage is legalized(Iowa), and have found same sex couples have not boasted or felt like they were obligated to feel a special privilege. You're right though, it's a possibility. However, I think I know why this is. The media calling it "gay marriage" or "same sex marriage" Is a reason people are against it. It's almost like those words are bad words. When you think of them, you have negative images and thoughts, because that's what you've seen in your enviroment and what people surrounding you have told you. I'll give another example. I'm going to give you a word, and I want you to tell me what's the first thing that comes into your head:
Now, did you see a Great white viciously attacking a boat or swimmer or another scene of a shark attack, or did words such as dangerous or killer or man eating pop up? Why is this? Simple, Jaws. One of the biggest blockbusters of all time. I'm sure you've watched it, and even if you haven't, people in your enviroment have and have talked about it. After seeing that and hearing the media about shark attacks, you think of sharks as a "bad" word just like "gay marriage" or "same sex marriage" is. Now, did you realize that sharks only kill on average 7 people a year. 7 people. Now I'm not saying that 7 is a good number, as it would be best if it was zero, but we all know that's almost impossible. Besides, I'm just comparing a sharks average kill rate a year to others. For example, did you know a vending machine kills 13 people a year? That's right, a man made object to hold and distribute carbonated drinks, water, candy bars, snacks, ect. almost doubles the average kill rate of a so called "man killer". Now, after hearing these statistics, is your view on sharks any different? Most likely not, because you have been raised and in the enviroment that sharks are killers. I believe if we keep using gay marriage and same sex marriage, people will always have that bad view on it just like the shark example. So I agree, gays shouldn't have special treatment, they should have the same treatment,
That includes just calling it "marriage" no matter who participates in it.
Also, you talked about how are not a religious nut and don't base your argument off a few pages in a book, and I applaud that. Almost every person I have debated about gay marriage has used that as their number one reasoning, and I'm glad you could look past that and use other valid points. Now, you seem very intelligent. I'm assuming you are aware of the seperating of religion and government. With that said, you said the bill would take forever to pass since the religious senators would hold it up. With the separation of church and state, they should not be allowed to do that. I feel like they would have to give reasoning behind why they reject the bill, and if their answers pertains anything to do with religion, it would be right to throw out that argument as it is invalid. If, however, it's allowed, that goes to show how truly flawed are government is. Also, you said the president has a right to veto a law, which is true. However, President Obama has been very pro towards gay marriage, and would not do such a thing. Now, if it takes forever to pass(which is pretty much a guarennte considering it took almost Obamas entire 2 terms for his health care to be passed, showing just how long these things take), that mean the president processing Obama could very well veto it. However, we don't know for certain, and I would like to hear what his reasoning against it would be since it can not be related to the Bible or church in any way, for if it was that would be the ultimate contradiction as the most powerful man in the United States is defining the law.


I agree that we base off of values we learned, but being tolerant is one of the most intolerant things you can do. The term tolerance, in a moral sense is when you can put up with something. I feel you made this point when comparing Jaws to the argument.

The problem about being tolerant is it leaves out a certain group of people. So when relating same-sex marriage to a hatred of sharks, you are comparing apples to oranges.

We don't tolerate sharks do we? We don't make parades for sharks because we kill them for food like every other animal and the sharks must be sad. No, we pass laws to preserve sharks, and we do what we can to keep the species okay so the food chain isn't all sorts of messed up.

Even though nobody throws parades against same-sex couples, they throw parades for same-sex couples. By special treatment I mean that they are categorized into a different group.

Democrats and Republicans are two different opinions, but nobody says "I tolerate Republicans," they just have different opinions and it should not be made into some big deal. If we could some how become the way we did with desegregation where people don't "tolerate it" anymore it's just a way of life, then I can see changing my opinion on same-sex marriage. You don't say "I'm tolerant of black people" that's a good way to get you hurt.

That being said, we are tolerant of same-sex couples. If those who don't support are being told that they are intolerant, then same-sex marriage cannot work. If those who are afraid of sharks are told they are intolerant because we kill sharks, that person who said that would be laughed at.

Therefore, it is too complicated to accept gay marriages and same-sex couples into the legal system without making one group feel left out. If we pass an amendment that says gay couples can get married nationwide, I'd feel like an outcast too if the entire infrastructure of government had to change because of my opinion...

That's where I find it an issue, if we make same-sex legal, it should not be made some big deal. Or, if it makes world or nationwide news, then it should be given the amount of attention that new speeding regulation is.

Until the time, when people think that gay marriage is equal rights, and is not looked at like a big deal anymore, then we can allow it. We need to have opinions, but we don't need to have it become a civil war or some huge movement without living on a fair basis.
Debate Round No. 2


I don't believe it is such a big deal anymore. I don't feel like their should be a sudden law passed where all the states it is now legal for gay marriage, but gay marriage has slowly been taking over the United states. 16 states have legalized gay marriage. Astounding isn't it? What's even more astounding is that 8 states passed it in 2013! Half of the states that allow it ended up allowing it the same year. It's a domino effect. If one goes, another goes with it. A chain reaction. Their hasn't been any legalization since then, but their has been talk about it. Could you imagine if another state were to legalize it next month, that possibly another domino effect could occur and 7 other states would jump on board?! That would put us at 24 states, almost half of the United States. Now, that doesn't seem like that big a deal, and just because basically half of America allows doesn't mean the other half has to. However, have you heard anything about mistreatment or big breakouts or issues in any of the 16 where it is legal where the root of the issue is gay marriage? Any signs of another civil war?
No, because same sex couples are doing what you believed they wouldnt do, And that's make it a big deal. No one longer thinks of it as a big deal anymore. New Hampshire, being the first to do it, legalized same sex marriage back in 2004. That's over a decade ago. If they were willing to move on then, why can't we as a nation now? Their ready for change, just like the rest of America should be.


Note: I don't think a civil war is needed to make it legal, however, I'd like to point out that a main thing that happened before a civil war was that same aforementioned domino effect. It started with South Carolina succeeding from the Union, then half of the other states soon followed. Followed by one of the bloodiest wars we ever had in this country.

Your right however, there's a difference between selling and buying human beings and two people who love each other getting married. Unfortunately, many people don't see it this way and therefore think it's a big deal. However, you are right about the domino effect as I said before, and I don't think a civil war is needed because we are not lowering ourselves like we did with slavery.

Not to change the argument, but I feel like there's some other not addressed issues that I need to cover.

I know a lot of our states have changed, but let me ask you this? If our government has to feel obligated to amendment the very constitution that outlines our government, or make a bill for something as simple as people getting married. This unfortunately defines our government, and if a group of people get their way and the government changes the guidelines of our country just so a group of people can get married, then...

1. It's a big deal.
2. If you still think it is not a big deal, then it certaintly makes people wonder how secure our government is...It starts with questions....

Would Marijuanna be legalized nationally next? Or how about the drinking age limit? Would you need to be 14 instead of 16 to get a day liscense. Should we seperate the church and the state, or should they come together for transportation methods? Would minimum wage be increased by an entire dollar(That's actually a lot !)?

If the government gave us everything we wanted, we would turn a strong democracy with a slight central government to an anarchy. This is my legal issue with gay marriage.

If we lived in a higher society or a world where people can just accept that one group got their way and the other widely popular groups didn't, and everyone was okay with that, then gay marriage could work as well...But since we don't, since we base on fairness and morals, if one group gets their way, then why should other groups not get their way.

I feel like if we can find away, for each state to allow gay marriage without it being a nationwide law. Aside from that, remember about filibusters, why should our government go through all that trouble to allow gay marriage, and not allow all the other groups that have just as strong cases.....
Debate Round No. 3


America is a young country. We've only been here a few hundred years. The thing is, through time things and views change. Through that time our view points about women rights have changed. Our views about civil rights and slavery have changed. Now, some places in the United States have changed their views of same sex marriage. Now you're right and have a great point, what about all those other groups? What about Marijuanna groups? Drinking limit? Separation of church of state? Minimum wage? I'll address these individually:
Marijuanna is legalized in some form in 24 states and the district of Columbia. They're has been talk in the past few days that 5-8 states are rapidly going towards the legalization of Marijuanna. This could be another domino effect. Now will people oppose? Sure. That's normal. Not everyone will always agree with it, but the majority of people see the benefits and see it's time for change, just like same sex marriage.
Drinking age:
I recently just got done with a debate on here about lowering the drinking age. With the way are brain develops, it's not completely finished until mid 20's. Alcohol could hinder their genetic potential. With that in mind, they also want to have it be 21 year olds instead of 18 year olds, as they are closer to the full development. 21 year olds will also be more mature.
Driving age:
Lowering the driving age would not happen for a few reasons. Brain development between the two is different. Obviously, a 16 year old is more intelligent and responsible than a 14 year old. I'm sure everyone can admit they were more intelligent at 16 than 14. It's just natural, it's common sense(just like 18 to 21). Also, if we were to legalize it at 14, that means you would be allowed to get your permit at 12. 12 year olds will be driving. I don't know about you, but that horrifies me. My 12 year old sister is a very intelligent girl, probably one of the smartest in her entire class, but I would not want her behind a wheel, not because she's not sister, not just because I don't think she's smart enough, but I think you have to be at a certain maturity to drive, just like you need to be a certain maturity to drink.
Seperating church and state:
As you know church and state is seperated, but with how atheist are not in any political power and are frowned upon in this country, and how politics how pushed(without really stating they are, but you can tell they are) for Christianity to be United States religion. Look around. "God bless America" "one nation under God" "in God we trust" those were not originally in those, they were recently(less than a century, 60-80) years ago. I feel if they did this then a lot of things beneficial would not pass, like same sex marriag, so I sincerly hope it stays separated, which I think it will.
Minimum wage:
Minimum wage will not be increased. Theirs no way our economy can afford it. Besides, I don't believe someone flipping burgers should get as much or more than the people serving our country.
The only group I think has a chance at change is Marijuanna, and to be honest they might get legalized before gay marriage. However, they are doing what gay marriage is doing, and is getting legalized state by state instead of on a nationwide base. If they see no problem within these states, then they'll eventually legalize it nationwide, just like I think they'll do with same sex marriage.


Those where just examples, there are many ideas that I have not mentioned that have just as good a thesis as the issue on gay marriage. Especially because gay marriage has a lot to do with the conservative and liberal parties. They both have very different point of views, even if most of them are non-secular or moral point of views, especially when it comes issues like gay marriage.

When it comes to these matters, the government gives the power to the state to decide. The same goes for many issues, such as the legalization of marijuana or abortion. If California views it on a liberal stance and says that gay marriage should be legal. Although, in the state of Georgia, they see it on a conservative point of view and keep it illegal.

Why should Georgia have to give up what they believe in just because California disagrees with them. Campaigning the legalization on a national term without their being a certain injustice involved, and as you said, gay marriage isn't a big deal anymore is wrong.

Most campaigns get pigeonholed and the fact that it even got to being left to the states to decide is wonderful. Yes, I'm aware of national conventions and know that gay marriage could be legal if it got to that point. However, I feel like you should leave this for the states to decide because everyone has different point of views.

It is not that difficult to get married in a state where it is legal and then go to where you reside because you are not marrying in that state. Therefore, if something they already decided on(giving the states to choose), becomes national law even though they already dealt with the matter and are busy people. Then it shows that our government could do anything we have opinions on, even if it's absolutely ridiculous if we get enough support.
Debate Round No. 4


I'm aware those were just examples, and not all the examples you have, I just thought I would address them.
You're right, they're will be a injustice if done on a nationwide base, your example being Georgia. However, by doing this domino effect we have talked about, Georgia will eventually change. The more and more people join a movement or decisions you are more likely to agree with it. In psychology this is explained in the Asch experiment. In this experiment, there is a graph with 3 lines on it. I'll do a visual below:
Now, out of those 3, which is longest? Obviously line B is the correct answer. However, all other participants who were actually paid actors chose line A.(or line C). 75% of the actual participants chose the wrong answer at those times, because of peer pressure. I could see this effect playing into effect. If a domino effect occurs again, Georgia citizens may begin to wonder why they aren't on board with it. Just because they aren't on board now, doesn't mean they won't be after another state legalizes it. I
It is at a state level at the moment, so why make it nationwide if they already dealt with it and they are busy people? It's a good point, but like we talked about earlier, domino effect. What if the majority, say 40-45 states have legalized gay marriage. Why not make it legal nation wide? The United states is a democracy, and is based on majority vote, and 40-45 states is well over half. That means only a select few states are not ready to change, while the others are. It would be easier just to make it nationwide ITHER than wait for them. What happens when it reaches 49 states? Are we just going to allow to have that one stubborn state unwilling to change? by having the states being unwilling to change, I believe it divides us, and a house divided cannot stand. Besides, what's the true disadvantages of same sex marriage? Other than injustice, what other cons would it have? I can only think of pros. The main reason people won't accept it is they are unwilling to change, and the bible(which you have not used once in this argument and I applaud that). Georgia is located in the south, more specifically the southern belt, and everyone knows how religious the south is. I can say from experience living in Arkansas, their Is around 10 churches just in my city alone. Even though they're not suppose to, like you said before senators with religious beliefs will not pass this because of their religious beliefs, so even if the majority of people from Georgia want to legalize it, if the governors don't want to because of religious beliefs, then it will never be legalized. That is why it needs to be legalized nationwide.

I want to once again thank the con for accepting my debate and making a great arguement.


I could see where your coming from if this was a matter that the people could vote on. However, their isn't polls that allow us to choose whether or not the states allow gay marriage. The issue is, we elect our officials however who share our points of views and our votes could influence the states decision to legalize something.

However, if we elect the representatives and governors that share a different view, then the people of that state voted for that person. Which means they represent our opinions and questions and that's the one we choose, so if we chose someone who is con gay marriage, and 49 other states elected someone who is pro-gay marriage, then unfortunately representative democracy makes us stuck with whatever opinion we had when we elected the person..

This becomes a problem because it doesn't allow each state their freedom of choice, as it's not a direct democracy where everybody gets there way.

To conclude, I would like to say that it is a difficult process to make gay marriage work. If we can find a way to make it simple, and all 50 states allow gay marriage, which is going to be unlikely or hard work, then gay marriage should be illegal for the time being.

I appreciate allowing me to debate this with you.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Whaddupnoob 3 years ago
Would it kill you guys just to shorten the debate a little?!
Posted by Lewis_P 3 years ago
To Con
"I feel like if same-sex marriage are going to be allowed, then they should not get special treatment that different-sex couples wouldn't get. "
- What special treatment do you fear same sex marriages would get?
Posted by FreedomEagle 3 years ago
No votes have been placed for this debate.