Are homosexual marriages, really marriages?

The question is simple.

Definitions:

Homosexual: Man with Man or Woman with Woman

Marriage: The joining of two to become one.

Round 1: Acceptance Only

Rounds 2-3 Are for Arguments and rebuttals.

First I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate. As this is an extremely hot topic, I know we will have a spirited debate, but I look forward to a professional debate as well.

I would like to say that I am against homosexual marriages. Marriage was instuted by God when He created Adam and Eve. This is how we are designed. Man and Woman. (See the Book of Genesis)

In marriage we become one with each other by joining our bodies together in a way that was naturally intended of the reproductive organs. Homosexual couples cannot take part in this joining.

It is not my argument that homosexual couples should not receive benefits, I would have to agree that is not fair or equal, but I cannot call it a marriage.

Even the definition from major dictionaries defines marriage as follows:

mar·riage/ˈmarij/

https://www.google.com...

With these factors kept in mind, I do not believe that we can consider a homosexual couple as candidates for marriage as it does not fit the criteria of one man and one woman.

Let's jump right in:

"Marriage was instituted by God when He created Adam and Eve. This is how we are designed. Man and Woman. (See the Book of Genesis)."

My opponent makes the claim that marriage was instituted by God in Genesis. If he is going to use the Bible as a source, he must confirm its validity as a source. Also, if he's going to claim God did something, he must explain why it should be accepted that God exists. Saying something happened in the Bible is not solid logic at all.

"In marriage we become one with each other by joining our bodies together in a way that was naturally intended of the reproductive organs. Homosexual couples cannot take part in this joining."

If the joining referred to in R1 refers only to vaginal sex, then are two people who engage in vaginal sex automatically married because they have been "joined"? Of course not. Marriage goes beyond sex.

Also, what if someone has a condition that prevents them from having sex- should they not be allowed to get married because they can't "join"? Of course not.

Third, my opponent claims that this was "naturally intended." Things in nature are not intended to be used a certain way.

My opponent says he is using the definition from "major dictionaries" but is really only using Google dictionary. Let's see what the good old Merriam Webster has to say about the matter:

Marriage- (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Would ya look at that! Same sex marriage is also marriage.

"With these factors kept in mind, I do not believe that we can consider a homosexual couple as candidates for marriage as it does not fit the criteria of one man and one woman."

My opponent has failed to demonstrate why marriage must be between a man and a woman only. Therefore, there is no reason not to consider homosexual marriages as marriages.

Back to you, Con.

"I would actually say that the burden of proof that the Bible is false would fall on my opponent. There is no evidence to disprove the Bible, it is sound and secure, written by God Himself through inspiration."

This commits the fallacy of Begging the Question or circular reasoning:

The Bible is true. How do we know the Bible is true? Because the Bible says it is true.

Tthe BoP is not on me to show that the tooth fairy does not exist. It is on you to show that the tooth fairy does exist. There is no evidence that Santa Clause does not exist.

"I stated that as a result of marriage we become one. So yes I agree, marriage goes beyond sex."

If we take the sex part out of the picture, a gay marriage functions the same way as a straight marriage. It is the same thing, except for the sexes of the people involved.

"How are things in nature not intended to be used in a natural way? Please explain."

Nothing in nature is intended. Things in nature evolve a certain way.

Also, is it intended by nature for us to cut our hair or to shave?

Words:

Marriage is a word like any other. There is no fundamental truth concerning what marriage is. It is whatever people deem it to be. Because today's society has opened up the possibility for marriage to go beyond a man and a woman, the definition of marriage changes. In today's society, gay marriages are really marriages. It is as simple as that.

The reason the definition of marriage needs/needed to be changed is because of equality. It is not right to deny someone the right to marry who they want to marry on the basis of sexual orientation. This freedom of choice is fundamental in maintaining strong democracy.

Conclusion:

The BoP is on the Bible to prove its truth, not the other way around. My opponent has not proven the Bible's truth, therefore, that part of his argument may be discarded.

Marriage was agreed to be the joining of two to become one. My opponent provided no reason beyond the Biblical reason, that two people of the same sex cannot join to become won.

I thank my opponent for this debate.

Vote Pro!