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

Should gay marriage be legalized?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
mayneisntokay has forfeited round #4.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/4/2017 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 734 times Debate No: 104774
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (0)




Rules of debate:
1. Be respectful
2. Do NOT use religion as an argument
3. No trolling please
4. Please do not write off arguments without real reason/evidence
5. Try not to use phrases like "I believe" or "in my opinion."
First round is acceptance, round two is opening arguments, rounds three and four are rebuttals, round five is closing arguments
Term rules:
When we refer to relationship and marriage we are refering to two consenting adults unless specified otherwise.
We will use gay to refer to a homosexual male(or person of unspecified gender) and lesbian to refer to a homosexual female

I will be pro. Good luck to con.


Challenge accepted.
Debate Round No. 1


Apologies for any format errors or such, this is my first debate on this website.

I would like to introduce my main topics/reasons of focus:
Homosexuality is part of a person's genetic code, according to some common sources, such as AsapScience, and therefor is a part of a person just as eye color or hair color is.

In fact, some very bright minds were attracted to the same sex, such as Leonardo da Vinci, Billie Holiday, Barbara Jordan, and more. The Greek gods, Zeus and Athena, were also in same sex relationships.

Putting whether one agrees with gay couples adopting children aside, it is better for a child to have parents with a concrete relationship. Not to mention, witnessing hate crimes and discrimination towards their adoptive parents wouldn't give them a very healthy mind.

It doesn't affect anybody other than the consensting adults marrying eachother.

Interracial marriages used to be illegal as well, because it was seen as "wrong."


While the question suggests a legal measure towards social equality, it also reveals a selfish intent. Why would gay marriage need to be legal? Who would benefit from this law? Could such a law cause more harm than good?

Why do laws exist in society? The pro is arguing in favor of creating a law which lacks purpose. What purpose would a gay marriage law serve if, " does not effect anyone other than consenting adults?"

The pro suggests that failing to legalize gay marriage may hinder the psychological development of children due to a potential increase in the frequency of witnessing emotional based crime. This argument concerning healthy development is flawed.

Just because we can, does not mean we should.
Debate Round No. 2


Although the con says that it reveals selfish intent, the con never specifies how or what that is, and therefor makes it hard for me to respond.

The con says, "Why would gay marriage need to be legal?" The answer is, that gay marriage needs to be legal so that everyone is able to be legally involved with whoever they are romantically involved with instead of just straight relationships. Simply, it would be bring equity. Note that equity and equality are not the same.

The con says, "Who would benefit from this law?" It's very obvious: the gays, even the ones not yet looking to get married. Simply being able to brings a sense of confidence and progressiveness to the table. The gays getting the same legal abilities is the whole point of gay marriage.

The con says, "Could such a law cause more harm than good?" Yes. But the answer is the same for straight marriage. There will always be risk of divorce or unhealthy relationships, but that there is a man instead of a woman, or a woman instead of a man in the relationship doesn't not make it more of a risk.

The con argues, "Why do laws exist in society?" Laws exist in society to keep order and people from acting maliciously against each other. The laws generally protect people, although we are constantly finding ways to make them better, make them worse, or break them. This is completely besides the point being debated.

They also argue "The pro is arguing in favor of creating a law which lacks purpose. What purpose would a gay marriage law serve if, " does not effect anyone other than consenting adults?"" The con seems to be ignoring the fact that 77% of the United States population consists of adults. I bring back my point that it would affect the gays in a positive way. The only people it would affect in a negative way are the people who can't get over the fact that gays are people just like everyone else and need the same rights.

The con says that my argument concerning healthy development is flawed, but does not specify in what way. I once again am unable to effectively respond.

I agree that just because we can doesn't mean should, but we have reason that we should other than that we can.


In my opening statement I proposed five rhetorical questions which must be examined before one can formulate an educated opinion on this matter. They are listed in no particular order:
1. Why would gay marriage need to be legal?
2. Who would benefit from this law?
3. Could such a law cause more harm than good?
4. Why do laws exist in society?
5. What purpose would a gay marriage law serve" ?

Why do laws exist in society? [Q4]
According to law makers, laws in the United States exist for five basic reasons and all of them can be abused. These reasons are commonly referred to as principles. Law makers should carefully consider each principle and the potential for abuse.
Harm Principle: To protect people from being harmed by others
Parental Principle: To establish healthy "parental-like" boundaries for people
Morality Principle: Promote the personal morality of the law's authors (usually religion based)
Donation Principle: Laws granting goods or services to people
Statist Principle: Laws intended to protect the government.

What purpose would a gay marriage law serve? [Q5]
Making gay marriage legal does not protect anyone from specific harm associated with not being legally married. One may argue that vendor discounts for goods and services, like insurance, may not be available for non-married couples. This does not constitute specific harm and thus principle 1 is does not apply.

Of the remaining principles, only the morality principle can be applied. Generally, laws created under the morality principle and strongly tied to morals or specific religious opinions. Such laws are usually controversial and may violate the separation of church and state concept. In this case, the pro is arguing in favor of a law in direct opposition of many religions. The logical conclusion is, any law which exists based upon the morality principle restricts individual freedoms and is in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, morality laws restrict the pursuit of happiness and individual liberty.

Why would gay marriage need to be legal? [Q1]
One may argue the legality of marriage is simple a moral matter. Laws related to marriage follow the morality principle as above. Any law which exists solely under the morality principle is not necessary and is simply an extension of the author"s morals. Some privileges are extended to spouses under certain laws as a courtesy. The ability to extend or withhold such a privilege should not be tied to law. These privileges are not to be confused with rights. Married couples have all the same rights as non-married couples in every US state.

I agree with the pro on this statement, "Marriage does not effect anyone except the two consenting adults." Marriage is a private matter between two (or more) persons and the government should stay out of it. Marriage laws are thus not necessary in modern society.

Who would benefit from this law? [Q2]
As Pro stated in rebuttal, "Gays would benefit from this law." This is the selfish intent mentioned in my opening statement. Pro argues that gays deserve the same rights as other couples. I agree, however, gays already have the same rights as other couples. These rights are: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. One must not confuse irrevocable rights with revocable privileges.

Could such a law cause more harm than good? [Q3]
We both agree, such a law would cause more harm than good. If such a law were passed, many vendors and service providers may revoke their privileges currently extended to spouses as a cost saving measure. Such privileges like: eligibility of family members to corporate health care plans, multi-driver / married discounts for auto-insurance, and increased tax deduction when filing jointly from the IRS. Changing the status quo with morality laws could jeopardize these benefits for every other married couple in the US.

Regarding pro's psychological developmental theory:
The argument is one psychological theory based upon another theory which then assumes the ability to predict the future. One cannot predict the future without error so arguing about it is illogical.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by NCdavidB 2 years ago
Bro, F. you Tofu, shots fired Pew Pew Pew, who knew
Your poetry is a steamy pile of dog poo
Childlike tantrum, going berserk
After your office caught fire at work
Perhaps you are just butt hurt,
Over that red stapler I tucked under my shirt
Posted by BroFU_Tofu_PewPewPew 2 years ago
an open letter to the fat, arrogant, anti-charismatic, national embarrassment known as 'NCdavidB'. The man's irrational, he claims that I'm in league with the Gays in some vast intersexual intrigue, bitch please, you wouldn't know what I am doing. You're always going berserk, but you never show up to work. Send my regards to your wife next time you write about my lack of moral compass, at least i do my job up in this rumpus.
Posted by NCdavidB 2 years ago
I had errors when pasting my rebuttal into the web form which resulted in a few typos. Please ignore them. According to the rules, I have ignored arguing about religion and mentioned it only as a potential legal motive for completeness.
Posted by John_C_1812 2 years ago
It is not possible to legalize only ignore or be unaware of the crime. The gay marriage or same sex marriage can be proved to be illegal. I'm just calling them Binivir or Unos Mulier as part of the crime is to have a witness describe a consummation by threat of Civil law, when a union that is represented does not required it.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

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