Why does it matter what marriage is called? - Page 2 - 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?

2»



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
Tie
Margin

Details +


Status: Open Debate


Arguments

  • 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 2017
    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.
  • It seems to me that those who cannot define marriage are unable to recognize marriage.

  • VaulkVaulk 439 Pts
    edited October 2017
    CYDdharta said:
    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.
    I'll raise a glass to this.  There are many arguments as to why Marriage shouldn't include anyone but a Man and Woman...but this argument here is paramount.  The suggestion that Marriage be redefined is tampering with the flood gates.  Allowing a change in something that hasn't been changed before will establish a precedent, in case anyone here's is unfamiliar with legal processes...precedence serves as a very strong argument.  If it's been done before...then it can be done again.  If we all decided that it can be changed once...then we can all decide that it can be changed again. 

    Speaker: Do you believe people should have the right to be in love with and Marry whomever they choose?

    Advocate: Yes I do.

    Speaker: Even between a Man and another Man?

    Advocate: Yes, especially.

    Speaker: What about a Father and his Son, if they decided they were in Love with each other, should they be able to Marry each other?

    Advocate: So long as they're both consenting adults then I don't see why not, who are we to tell them that their love is wrong?

    Speaker: Then by that law, the Father being the legal guardian could sign the authorization for his Son to marry prior to the age of 18, as young as 14 as a matter of fact.  So then basically we would be creating a legal loophole for pedophilia.

    Advocate: Well...I guess...that sounds pretty bad when you put it like that.

    Speaker: You mean when I bring up the real consequences that you didn't consider?
    "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".


  • ...and the decline continues...

    Woman gets engaged to 90-year-old chandelier


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