Why does it matter what marriage is called? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Why does it matter what marriage is called?

Opening Argument

melanielustmelanielust 249 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.
the_worlddropoutlove2debateSilverishGoldNovaale5
  1. What should gay marriage be called

    16 votes
    1. Civil Union
      18.75%
    2. A marriage
      81.25%
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +


Status: Open Debate


Arguments

  • ale5ale5 214 Pts
    @melanielust, I agree.  That's fine to call it marriage. The most important part is legal protection that comes with it.
    melanielust
    It's kind of fun to do the impossible
    - Walt Disney
  • agsragsr 779 Pts
    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.
    love2debateSuperSith89
  • 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.
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 514 Pts
    edited June 2017
    @PowerPikachu21 You've never heard of polygamy?  Watch a few episodes of Sister Wives sometime. And how about someone marrying themselves?

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/living/2900929/single-woman-39-is-so-fed-up-with-finding-mr-right-that-she-is-going-to-marry-herself/

    Specifically, what benefits do civil unions lack?

    the_world
  • 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.
    Vaulk
  • VaulkVaulk 410 Pts
    The reason the word "Marriage" is important is largely due to the origination of the term...it'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.
    http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/

    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 Heaven...it'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"? 

    No? 
    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.


    dropout
    "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.
    melanielustVaulkSilverishGoldNova
  • 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.
    melanielust
  • VaulkVaulk 410 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.
    http://www.al.com/news/birmingham/index.ssf/2017/09/mountain_brook_native_sues_ove.html
    agsr
  • @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
  • 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--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
    "I was trolling you."  - @Erfisflat ;

  • @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
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2018 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