frame

Why does it matter what marriage is called?

2

Status: Open Debate


Arguments

  • @CYDdharta, great find.  To your point, that's a nice example of extreme boundaries.  Maybe I should marry my iPhone. Lol.
    Live Long and Prosper
  • @agsr Meh, maybe not.  Like this guy, you'd be planning a divorce as soon as the new model came out.  If they decide to recognize the marriage, I think they ought to make him pay alimony if he ever buys a new system.
    agsr
  • VaulkVaulk 271 Pts
    I find it entirely accurate and appropriate that several people in this debate have referenced "Civil Rights" when it comes to the argument of Marriage versus Civil Union.  This is truly a Civil Rights matter and in the United States, our civil rights are bestowed upon us by a power higher than the government...as established in the Declaration of Independence.  Since our forefathers specifically founded our country on the belief in these God given rights then I find perfect logic in referring to God's will in regards to what we should do in the matters of Marriage. 

    That and I'm going to stand firmly with @CYDdharta on this one, you cannot begin making allowances in this regard without guaranteeing another open door for people to squeeze other agendas in.  You allow Marriage to include same sex unions and before you know it...there's laws protecting a Brother and Sister's right to marry each other...and their parents...and their uncles and aunts.  Where would it stop?
    "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".


  • @Vaulk and @CYDdharta, while the marrying of the computer story is of course ridiculous, that shouldn't be taken as an excuse to block gay marriages.  The point is that marriage instead of civil union comes with both recognition and legal protection that these couples deserve.  We need to have faith in constitution and reasonableness of American people that the line will not be extended to things, animals, and other weird arrangements 
    It's kind of fun to do the impossible
    - Walt Disney
  • @ale5,

    Look I WISH I was still of the mind and mentality that I could have faith in the American people...but if you ever needed an example of the Camel's nose or more commonly "Giving an inch and taking a mile" then look no further than here:

    http://www.cracked.com/article_22506_9-epic-dick-moves-that-are-surprisingly-legal.html

    This is a CLASSIC example of what happens when people use their mind to work the system...and all of these things happen.  I'm sorry, but if American's were trustworthy in the way that they would be desserving of the faith you're suggesting...we wouldn't need laws.

    "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:
    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.
    http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2017/09/mountain_brook_native_sues_ove.html

    LOL
    Vaulk
  • @Vaulk, great article about loopholes, I like the tank, evicted tenant the best.   but we still need to use our discretion regarding this particular civil union vs marriage issue.  I would support giving them marriage level legal  rights without calling it a marriage
    It's kind of fun to do the impossible
    - Walt Disney
  • ale5 said:
    @Vaulk and @CYDdharta, while the marrying of the computer story is of course ridiculous, that shouldn't be taken as an excuse to block gay marriages.  The point is that marriage instead of civil union comes with both recognition and legal protection that these couples deserve.  We need to have faith in constitution and reasonableness of American people that the line will not be extended to things, animals, and other weird arrangements 
    Faith in the reasonableness of the American people???  Really?!?  If we could have such faith, 90% of the laws on the books would never have been written.  The entire modern legal system is built specifically on the un-reasonableness of the people.  Frivolous lawsuits abound.  That's no t to mention the fact that 50 years ago, any thought of gay marriage was so foreign and outlandish that it would only have been mentioned in jest.  Having changed the definition once, I believe we can expect to see it changed multiple times in a much shorter time frame.
  • @CYDdharta, as we evolve from stone age to modern society we will continue to encounter many ways of challenging interpretation of the older thinking.  We cant avoid it.  Even the very definition of what it means to be human will eventually be challenged as technoogy will augment our lives wih various biotech implants.  We cannot avoid making such interpretations over time and just keeping forever the rules.  We need to be able to interpret the line of constitution as new realities are exposed.  I for one don't want to live like an Amish,and believe that world is changing and will always change.  
    I am not saying I support changing the line easily, but do think that in this particular example its warranted. 


    It's kind of fun to do the impossible
    - Walt Disney
  • ale5 said:
    @CYDdharta, as we evolve from stone age to modern society we will continue to encounter many ways of challenging interpretation of the older thinking.  We cant avoid it.  Even the very definition of what it means to be human will eventually be challenged as technoogy will augment our lives wih various biotech implants.  We cannot avoid making such interpretations over time and just keeping forever the rules.  We need to be able to interpret the line of constitution as new realities are exposed.  I for one don't want to live like an Amish,and believe that world is changing and will always change.  
    I am not saying I support changing the line easily, but do think that in this particular example its warranted. 


    I hate to say it, but that's a very poorly thought-out argument.  Evolution?!?  Homosexuality is hardly a new-found practice.  As far as can be determined, homosexuality predates the practice of marriage, or even monogamy.  If marriage was meant to cover homosexual relationships, they would have been included from the start.  They were purposely excluded. 
  • @CYDdharta, my point is that the definitions evolve.  With more information, homosexuality and genders seem to now be more fluent.  There is much more information about it, and just like other things - slavery, women rights, gay rights - these groups demand acceptance and fare conditions.  Before we didn't let women vote either, and now all of that changed.

    while it is ridiculous to say that it's okay for man to marry a computer, we will debate these notions in the future as well when the line between person and computer blur.
    It's kind of fun to do the impossible
    - Walt Disney
  • ale5 said:
    @CYDdharta, my point is that the definitions evolve.  With more information, homosexuality and genders seem to now be more fluent.  There is much more information about it, and just like other things - slavery, women rights, gay rights - these groups demand acceptance and fare conditions.  Before we didn't let women vote either, and now all of that changed.

    while it is ridiculous to say that it's okay for man to marry a computer, we will debate these notions in the future as well when the line between person and computer blur.
    No lines are blurring.  A homosexual relationship today is biologically exactly the same as it was a millennium ago.the only thing that has changed is society's opinion.
  • @CYDdharta, by that logic what changed between now and before for slaves, women, etc?  Agreed that relationship is the same, but if we want to give them rights then lets give
     them legal protection of marriage.  If there is a philosophical concern about actually calling it marriage then I am okay to give full marriage rights to a civil union.
    It's kind of fun to do the impossible
    - Walt Disney
  • ale5 said:
    @CYDdharta, by that logic what changed between now and before for slaves, women, etc?  Agreed that relationship is the same, but if we want to give them rights then lets give
     them legal protection of marriage.  If there is a philosophical concern about actually calling it marriage then I am okay to give full marriage rights to a civil union.
    Slavery and women's rights violated one of our nation's founding principles, that all men are created equal.  It was an error that was destined to be corrected.  My problem isn't so much with giving gay couples legal protections, provided they aren't abused, it's with redefining "marriage". 
  • @CYDdharta, I did see Chuck and Larry. It was a funny movie, but isnt sufficient ground for preventing gay rights. Many will argue that denying gay rights also prevent the same principles that all men are created equal.
    It's kind of fun to do the impossible
    - Walt Disney
  • ale5 said:
    @CYDdharta, I did see Chuck and Larry. It was a funny movie, but isnt sufficient ground for preventing gay rights. Many will argue that denying gay rights also prevent the same principles that all men are created equal.
    I didn't say anything about denying gay rights, I just said said we need to be vigilant about abuses.  Many have argued that calling it a civil union violates the principle that all men are created equal.  Many have argued that totalitarianism is the best form of government.  Mob rule is not the best way to run a society.
  • @CYDdharta, if you are not trying to deny gay rights, why not offer these couples a chance for fulfilling marriage. That would qualify them for benefits if the other person dies.  Opportunity for abuse is similar to man- woman relationships.
    It's kind of fun to do the impossible
    - Walt Disney
  • ale5 said:
    @CYDdharta, if you are not trying to deny gay rights, why not offer these couples a chance for fulfilling marriage. That would qualify them for benefits if the other person dies.  Opportunity for abuse is similar to man- woman relationships.
    Because their "marriage" alters the term from it's original intent and purpose.  I thought we already went over this in detail.

    As for abuse; on a per-person basis, the opportunity for exploitation is doubled as now gender no longer matters.  Someone entering a marriage of convenience, for instance for a green card, can now look for someone of their own sex as well as someone of the opposite sex. 
  • @CYDdharta, while maybe somewhat true, doubling the abuse possibility just because there are now more people in a pool doesnt provide sufficient reason for banning gay marriage.
    original intent and purpose and whether that purpose isnt amendable is debateble.
    It's kind of fun to do the impossible
    - Walt Disney
  • @ale5,

    I'm afraid your opponent is correct on this one.  This isn't a matter of gay rights.  If two horses can't get married because Marriage is between a Man and Woman...then two Men or two Women cannot marry each other because Marriage is between a Man and Woman.  We don't violate the sanctity of things simply because other people want them to bend or contort in ways that benefit themselves...that's not how our laws work.  We don't bend tax brackets to fit those of us who want to be in them but don't qualify for them.  We don't bend licensing laws to somehow arbitrarily include people who don't qualify for the licenses.  IF this is truly about the benefits that gay people are alleged to be owed then they should be fighting to bring the benefits of a Civil Union up to par with Marriage benefits...not insisting that the U.S. rewrite the law on Marriage to fit their agenda.
    islander507ale5
    "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 support @Vaulk opinion.  I also support enhancing  civil union rights more in line with marriage rights 
  • Vaulk said:
    @ale5,

    I'm afraid your opponent is correct on this one.  This isn't a matter of gay rights.  If two horses can't get married because Marriage is between a Man and Woman...then two Men or two Women cannot marry each other because Marriage is between a Man and Woman.  We don't violate the sanctity of things simply because other people want them to bend or contort in ways that benefit themselves...that's not how our laws work.  We don't bend tax brackets to fit those of us who want to be in them but don't qualify for them.  We don't bend licensing laws to somehow arbitrarily include people who don't qualify for the licenses.  IF this is truly about the benefits that gay people are alleged to be owed then they should be fighting to bring the benefits of a Civil Union up to par with Marriage benefits...not insisting that the U.S. rewrite the law on Marriage to fit their agenda.
    @Vaulk, good point.  
    It's kind of fun to do the impossible
    - Walt Disney
  • It doesn't matter what it's called. What matters are the legal rights.
    ale5
  • CYDdharta said:
    Here's a perfect illustration of the problem with altering well-established definitions to suit political purposes;
    The difference here is that this man wants to marry an inanimate object. You are comparing biotic and abiotic, reciprocative love to that of a non-living object. There are limits as to how you alter the definitions of many things, and you are acting like because there are homosexuals who want to marry, that the definition will for some reason be allowed into changing people to marry objects that they like or have addictions with BECAUSE of this alteration of the word marriage referring to gays and lesbians, too.
    Save Draft
  • edited September 28
    CYDdharta said:
    Here's a perfect illustration of the problem with altering well-established definitions to suit political purposes;
    The difference here is that this man wants to marry an inanimate object. You are comparing biotic and abiotic, reciprocative love to that of a non-living object. There are limits as to how you alter the definitions of many things, and you are acting like because there are homosexuals who want to marry, that the definition will for some reason be allowed into changing people to marry objects that they like or have addictions with BECAUSE of this alteration of the word marriage referring to gays and lesbians, too.
    You're letting your phobias and biases cloud your judgement.  Who says a marriage can't be with an inanimate object?  Who are you to tell someone who or what they can or can't love?  Who are you to stand in the way of someone else's true love???

    See how easy this is, the exact same emotional arguments that worked to allow redefining marriage once will work the next time as well, and the next, and the next.  There are no limits; if there were, marriage wouldn't have been redefined in the first place.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

Debate Anything on DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2017 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | 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

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch