Why does it matter what marriage is called?

Opening Argument

melanielustmelanielust 246 Pts
edited June 2017 in United States
For those who believe "marriage is between a man and a woman."

I don't see why it matters. Makes no difference to you if a gay couple says they're in a civil union vs they're married. If they want to have a marriage, let them. There's no reason why a marriage should be so strictly limited to only straight couples, that's just a violation of individual freedoms.

The benefits of marriage are often very preferable to a civil union. It varies by state, but to be civilly united sometimes means you don't get as many legal benefits.

I know the definition of marriage says that in some jurisdictions it's specifically a man and a woman. But it shouldn't be. All around, marriage should be open to any relationship between two consenting adults.
  1. What should gay marriage be called

    16 votes
    1. Civil Union
    2. A marriage

Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place

Details +

Status: Open Debate


  • @melanielust, I agree.  That's fine to call it marriage. The most important part is legal protection that comes with it.
    It's kind of fun to do the impossible
    - Walt Disney
  • There are multiple important technicalities between marriage rights and civil union.  Marriage offers much stronger legal protection.
    Live Long and Prosper
  • When you change definitions, where does it stop?  Can more than one woman marry one man? Can more than one man marry one woman?  Can a bunch of men marry a bunch of women?  Can someone marry themselves?  And lets not forget, some people really love their pets.
  • I also agree with @CYDdharta.  Marriage should be reserved for traditional man-woman union.  Anything else shouldn't be called that.  We can talk about various degrees of legal protection, unions, and etc - but cannot violate sacred vows with introducing these variations.
  • All a marriage is, is a legal binding of two people, though usually of a man and a woman. What's the difference between that and a "Civil Union"? After looking it up, I see it's meant solely for same-sex couples, not having a great legal protection, but that sounds same-sexist. Why not give them marriage? 
  • @PowerPikachu21 Why stop at 2 people?  Why not 3? or 4? or more?  If a civil union is the same as marriage, what difference does it make what it's called?
  • Well, I'm not sure if a group of 3 would want to be legally married, let alone more than 3. And Civil Union isn't exactly marriage, as it lacks some of the same benefits.
  • edited June 2017
    @PowerPikachu21 You've never heard of polygamy?  Watch a few episodes of Sister Wives sometime. And how about someone marrying themselves?

    Specifically, what benefits do civil unions lack?

  • Marriage is between man and women not same-sex. The process of gay marriage shouldn't be allowed with a name change or not either.
  • VaulkVaulk 307 Pts
    The reason the word "Marriage" is important is largely due to the origination of the's Biblical.  Without going into the countless citations needed for that previous statement I'll simply provide this: Throughout the history of mankind, across the World, no matter what culture you study, the practice of Marriage is universal.  If marriage developed in a random, haphazard, evolutionary fashion, one might expect that “marriage” would be found in some cultures but not in others. The evidence, however, simply does not support that view.

    Now we can move onto the fundamental principles of the United States, which can be found in the Declaration of Independence.

    Our Founding Fathers concluded that our rights to "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" were "God given rights".  This sets the undertone of the establishment of the United States as a God respecting Country.  Further down the line we also established that "In God we trust" and that we are "One nation, under God".  So it's not like we have to stretch any truths to understand that our Country largely recognizes God and his will. 

    Now I said all of that to just say this: Marriage is recognized in the United States as God's will, and since God's will also includes that Homosexuals shall not inherit the Kingdom of's pretty clear that God's will on Marriage does not include anything about "Same sex unions".  Marriage was created to describe the holy union between a Man and a Woman.

    Lastly, if anyone's still doubtful I'll ask this: Can you say that a "Straight Man" and "Straight Woman" in a relationship together is a "Gay relationship"? 

    Why not? 
    Answer: Because that's not what the term "Gay relationship" means.  Now simply apply the same concept to "Marriage" and you should conclude the same.

    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".

  • I have the belief of anyone being able to get married as long as they are happy. There is no point to rename it into a civil union.
  • I think it's ridiculously stupid to call marriage between two of the same sex anything other than just marriage. Love is love. That's all that matters. If I was gay and going to get married, why would I call it a Civil Union? Put yourself in someone else's shoes.
  • VaulkVaulk 307 Pts
    @eric_the_warlord, You've supported my point above very well.  If there's no need to differentiate in the case of marriage then there's no need to differentiate in the case of sexual orientation...but we do.  If you need specify "Gay" then you also need to specify "Marriage". 

    Look I have no issue with Gay, transgender, ect...ect.  But I'm with Morgan Freeman on this one..."Stop calling each other by hyphenated names".  He's not a "Gay Man" he's a "Man".  They're not a "Gay Couple" they're a "Couple.  Until we can all get to this point...then I doubt very seriously anyone's going to stop having issues with assigning terms to people that don't fit the meaning.
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".

  • CYDdharta said:
    @PowerPikachu21 Why stop at 2 people?  Why not 3? or 4? or more?  If a civil union is the same as marriage, what difference does it make what it's called?
    I don't see what one has to to with the other (currently Marriage and Civil Unions are both between 2 people so multiple partners is kind of a seperate point) but as you mention it, why not allow 3+ consenting adults to marry?
  • We start crossing bizarre boundaries.  Once we start talking about polygamy, animals, we are in bizarro land.  What about robots? 
    There are 3 major considerations
    1) biblical definition- that doesn't seem to support anything other than one man and woman.
    2) legal rights of marriage vs civil union
    3) civil rights of accepting lgbt as the norm

    based on how each of us feels about 1 and 3, we determine if we are supportive or not
  • @AlwaysCorrect Divorce between two people can be quite complicated.  I'd hate to imagine trying to figure out what happens when someone tries to get out of a marriage between 3, 4, 5 people.  Eventually you'll end up with a few communes or cult communities where everyone is married to everyone else. 
  • @islander507

    Lots of things can be complicated. That alone isn't a reason to ban something for consenting adults. I can't think of anything else that is disallowed simply because it's complicated.

    And if you do end up with a few households where a dozen or so people are all group-married, what is the issue?
  • @AlwaysCorrect What would marriage actually mean?
  • @CYDdharta

    What it means now, but inclusive of more people. Part a financial arrangement and legal status for the participants and part a declaration of love and family. For some it would also involve religious aspects but that varies by religion to religion. Only the financial arrangement would really be static and definable and would likely vary by country, with exactly what marriage means in terms of love and religion being a very personal point of view that would really be down to the participants.
  • @AlwaysCorrect It doesn't mean anything now, that's the problem. 
  • @CYDdharta

    Eh, I know people who'd disagree so it's obviously a very subjective issue where there is no one single correct answer, which is why I think we should leave it up to consenting adults to decide. If someone else decides something different from you, it doesn't really matter unless you're planning to marry them yourself.
  • I'm going by the circular definitions in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary;

    Definition of marriage

        1 -  a) see usage paragraph below :  the state of being united as spouses in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law  b)  the mutual relation of married persons :  wedlock  c)  the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage

        2 - an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected; especially :  the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities

    Definition of matrimony

        :  the state of being married

    Definition of wedlock

        :  the state of being married

  • You just said marriage doesn't mean anything now, then you immediately turn around and provide meanings for marriage!
  • @AlwaysCorrect It doesn't mean anything when even Merriam-Webster has to refer to the term in the definition.
  • Here's a perfect illustration of the problem with altering well-established definitions to suit political purposes;

    Mountain Brook native fights to marry computer to protest gay marriage 'charade'

    Mark Chris SeviernbspMark "Chris" Sevier  The Mountain Brook man who has made national headlines over the years for filing several federal lawsuits regarding his desire to marry his computer said he is on a mission to preserve the "integrity of the Constitution."   Mark "Chris" Sevier filed a lawsuit in Alabama's Northern District last month stating his rights, along with several "ex-gay" co-plaintiffs, were violated by Gov. Kay Ivey, Attorney General Steve Marshall, and Blount County Probate Judge Chris Green because Sevier's marriage to an Apple computer-- which he claimed to marry in New Mexico-- was not recognized in Blount County. In the filing, Sevier claimed he "married an object in New Mexico with female like features" and asked Green to either recognize the union or issue him a new marriage license. "Defendant Green issues marriage licenses to individuals who self-identify as homosexual, but he refuses to issue marriage licenses to zoophiles, machinists, and polygamists license on a basis that can only be described as procedurally arbitrary," the complaint states.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top | The Best Online Debate Website!

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018, All rights reserved. | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us
Awesome Debates
Terms of Service

Get In Touch