The Instigator
whyt3nn3rdy
Pro (for)
Winning
22 Points
The Contender
imabench
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points

Atheists should be allowed to marry.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 7 votes the winner is...
whyt3nn3rdy
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/14/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,358 times Debate No: 23597
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (14)
Votes (7)

 

whyt3nn3rdy

Pro

My position is Pro in this debate and I believe that atheists should be allowed to marry. I have seen this debate around the Internet for some time now and figured I'd give my opinion on here before it explodes like the gay-marriage thing did.

Rules:
First Round Acceptance

No aruments of definitions. If you debate this topic, you accept my definitions.

No arguments in the last round.

Cases may be longer than 8,000 characters, rebuttals may not, but it must be reasonable (the opposing side must be able to argue all points effectively).
imabench

Con

There is to be no arguing of definitions, but the pro didnt give definitions of anything so now I can go ahead and give definitions and the Pro has to accept them since he cant argue the definitions.

Athiests as we all know is an anagram thingy that stands for:

Abnormally
Timid
Hedgehogs
Indigenous to
Eastern
Somalian
Tributaries

So Athiests are defined as Somalian Hedgehogs who are always pissed off and live only in the Somalian river tributaries....

Marry is a word that we all know also is an anagram which stands for;

Maim
All
Republican
Right-leaning
Youths

So this debate will be centered around why Somalian hedgehogs should have the right to decapitate, castrate, maim and gang-bang Republican children in America. The Pro has the BOP.

First round is acceptance only.
No non-semantics rule was given.
Game on. Strap in folks because its going to be a wild ride ;D
Debate Round No. 1
whyt3nn3rdy

Pro

Con seems to have understood my argument, as he did not argue my definitions, considering I said nothing about it.

Definitions, as we all know is an acronym that stands for:

Deadly
Effective
Forfeit
Inducing
Non
Intuitive
Troll
Institution
Of
Non
Sequiturs

Because he did not argue my definitions, he has followed this rule. Good job, Con, now on with this debate.

Con says something about some hedgehogs, but he misunderstands the commonly known terms:

Atheists - a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
[http://dictionary.reference.com...]

Con seems to have misunderstood me when he thought I was talking about athiest. I would like to point out that the resolution stated "atheists" not "athiest" should be allowed to marry.

I would next like to turn to Con's argument about the word "marry." He claims this is an anagram for "Main All Republican Right-Leaning Youths." I will refute this with a simple definition. (Note, this is different than "definitions.").

Anagram - a word, phrase, or sentence formed from another by rearranging its letters: "Angel" is an anagram of "glean." [http://dictionary.reference.com...]

The word marry is not an anagram for "main all republican right-leaning youths."

Now to present the case being debated here, as it should have been obvious to Con.

Contention 1: Race in the Past, Sexuality in the Present, Religion in the Future

In the past, race was a huge factor in whether or not people could marry. Obviously, most of America has overcome this prejudice. However, this prejudice was just replace with a new one. President Obama has recently released a statement that he is pro-gay marriage. It has recently been blown out of proportion to the point that picketers line the streets in some areas claiming that gay-marriage is wrong. If it's progressed from race to sexual orientation, what's next? "How long will it be before they start fighting for other kinds of limits on civil marriages based upon their beliefs about what their god wants? For example, should atheists be allowed to marry? Godless people cannot be united in "Holy Matrimony" and their marriages cannot in any way be based on the will of any gods. From a faith-based perspective, this makes godless couples just as much out-laws as gay couples today, or interracial couples in the past." [http://atheism.about.com...] The fact that this is even becoming an issue is a shock to most atheists. However, it is a possible controversy that could be brought about in years to come. According to the poll in the same source, 3322 people that voted were against future bans of atheist weddings. 298 said that these bans should be put in place, and 253 said that they didn't care. Though the numbers of those for the bans are not great, it is still significant that there are. If there are two or more sides to an issue at hand, it could easily evolve into a controversy in contemporary society.

Contention 2: What is Holy Matrimony?

Matrimony can easily be defined as: the act or state of being married; marriage.[http://www.thefreedictionary.com...]

and

Holy: specially recognized as or declared sacred by religious use or authority; consecrated [http://dictionary.reference.com...]

However, with these two definitions in place, we also must define religion itself.

Religion: a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects [http://dictionary.reference.com...]

Because religion is just a set of beliefs, we can all agree that atheists are religious, because they have a set of beliefs, no? Just because they do not express it in a church does not mean it does not exist. Because of this fact, atheists do not violate the term holy matrimony, and can be married under such a title.

Even if Con refutes this point, there is the easy solution of taking this term out of the marriage procedure. By specifying that a marriage involves an atheist in this manner, people will be less likely to attack the reasoning here, as they do not violate any religious institutions by marrying within it. It's similar to removing the phrase "under God" in the pledge of allegiance, it does no harm to the meaning of the pledge, as taking certain phrases out of a marriage procedure would not hurt the service.

I will leave it at these two contentions, making the purpose of this debate clear. I urge an immediate Conduct vote to Pro if Con continues to troll this debate.
imabench

Con

I apologize for not knowing what the Pro meant by "definitions" I was thinking of something COMPLETELY different. As for the Pro's definitions to the words "Atheists" and "Marry" That Ive never heard of, Ill roll with it even though we all know what they really mean, so lets all pretend for a bit that athiets are people who dont believe in God and all that..

After reading the Pro's argument I must say I applaud the Pro for managing to almost out-troll me and completely re-rail the debate I tried to de-rail in the first place, so I encourage people to give the Pro the one point of conduct as my own token of good will :)

"I will leave it at these two contentions, making the purpose of this debate clear. I urge an immediate Conduct vote to Pro if Con continues to troll this debate."

Dont worry I shall not troll anymore, I respect you know for doing what you did and now I shall debate the resolution about why Athiests should not be allowed to marry........................ In Church.

I'll begin my arguments in the next round :)
Debate Round No. 2
whyt3nn3rdy

Pro

I will leave this round for the voters to do with, I suppose. However, the resolution stated "marry" and I mean "marry" in general, not specifically in church. I also will still be debating about atheists, not these athiests that Con keeps talking about.

I will debate that atheists should marry in churches, but the resolution stands, and in this debate the only arguments that should gain votes from the voters are about marriage in general.

The burden of proof rests on Con to prove that atheists should not marry (anywhere) at all.
imabench

Con

"I will debate that atheists should marry in churches"

Excellent >:)

- In the Christian religion, a church is a building or structure to facilitate the meeting of its members according to Wikipedia. According to priests a church is the thing you go to every Sunday and if you dont then you will burn in hell forever.
- According to anyone on the West Coast Church is that thing where you have to race through it so that you can get home in time for kickoff when it is during the NFL season.
- According to the members of the Westboro Baptist Church a church is a free pass towards being ignorant a**holes and getting away with it
- But to most of us church is simply the thing where you go to for 2 hours where the most interesting part of the service is getting the little holy Potato-Chip thing halfway through the ceremony.

Regardless of where you live though churches are religious institutions that have the right to be able to decide who can marry inside them. Churches have the right to not allow gays, atheists, hindu's, buddists, jews, muslims, or black people to get married because these people either have contrary faiths to what the church practices and condones, or are black. Athiests can be a religious people but since they are neither members of the church they wish to marry in, nor even recognize that God exists, and actually believe in science, Churches have a good reason to not allow them to marry inside a church. Imagine if two Jews tried to get married in Hitlers front yard or if two black people wanted to get married in Jimtimmy's front yard, obviously the owners of those houses would not be pleased with what is going on and would much rather see them dead, and they have the right to not allow a couple to get married on their property because its their property.

Athiests have a right to marry, but the location of where they have a right to marry becomes an issue because two athiests getting married in a church would be like both of them giving Christianity a vicious prostate exam, and that isnt right because we all know that only priests should be able to decide what they shove up someones a**hole whether it be their finger or something else.......

The Pro hasnt made any arguments yet so I cant really rebut anything, so Ill end here for now. Athiests shouldnt be allowed to marry in Churches because churches have a right to choose who can marry
Debate Round No. 3
whyt3nn3rdy

Pro

Con drops the rest of pretty much everything I've just said, and argues only one point, that I claimed insignificant to this debate. As I am the framer of this resolution, and I told Con that this point could not be the only one, and will not hold up in this debate, I am defaulted the win if Con only uses this argument about churches.

I found Con's definitions of church to be quite hilarious, however unproductive they are to his argument.

Con mistakes atheists again, but this time for people who believe in science. This will not hold up in this debate, but I thought it was interesting, as that is in no way a definition of an atheist. I would also like to point out that atheists are not those who always insult religion, or are opposed to the idea of religion, but just people who don't personally believe in that religion. Just because of this fact, does a church really have the RIGHT to ban them from marrying? No. Wedding receptions cost a lot of money, and of course, money is paid to the churches. Because churches are generally non-profit, revenue from a wedding is just the way to keep running. More weddings = more money. Therefore, the more people that are able to marry, the more money that is given to the churches themselves.

"Athiests have a right to marry" is what Con says, and I agree. That is exactly what this debate is about, and therefore it will be counted as a concession to the resolution itself.

Because Con concedes to the entire resolution, he concedes to everything I've said in this debate.

Whether or not Con has continued to troll is up to the voters, but I beg a default win because the rule was that if he were to, I would win this debate automatically.
imabench

Con

I found Con's definitions of church to be quite hilarious, however unproductive they are to his argument.

Awww you, I live to please ;D

Con mistakes atheists again, but this time for people who believe in science.

So are you saying that atheists dont believe in science? Lets debate about THAT :D

Just because of this fact, does a church really have the RIGHT to ban them from marrying? No.

Just saying no doesnt make it true....

Wedding receptions cost a lot of money, and of course, money is paid to the churches. Because churches are generally non-profit, revenue from a wedding is just the way to keep running. More weddings = more money. Therefore, the more people that are able to marry, the more money that is given to the churches themselves.


Churches are swimming in cash flow from people who think that a $20 donation will forgive all of their sins however mundane or severe they may be. Also the Churches dont sell them the wedding gowns, the food, the decorations, the furniture, etc, that comes from other companies so maybe a minute fraction of costs of weddings go to the churches. Also some churches arent non profit, and you havent even addressed the fact that Churches are private property when it comes to marriage and that they have the right to decide who gets to get married in them through whatever criteria they set up.

"Athiests have a right to marry" is what Con says, and I agree. That is exactly what this debate is about, and therefore it will be counted as a concession to the resolution itself.

Well of course atheists should be allowed to marry, what idiot doesnt think so? I merely tried to take this resolution geared for an easy win for you and tried to make it humorous so that people would actually read it rather than dismiss it as an easy win for the pro. Besides what actual argument is there against having atheists marry that actually holds water?

Whether or not Con has continued to troll is up to the voters, but I beg a default win because the rule was that if he were to, I would win this debate automatically.

You were gong to win this debate automatically from the start since its geared for an easy win. I merely hijacked it and took a hit to my win percentage so that this debate wouldnt clog up the challenge section like all the other debates also geared for an easy win, while at the same time debating somewhat about how atheists shouldnt be allowed to marry in Churches.....
Debate Round No. 4
whyt3nn3rdy

Pro

So are you saying that atheists dont believe in science? Lets debate about THAT :D

My point was about how Con threw away the intention of my argument. It wasn't that I was claiming atheists didn't believe in science, but that it was not the only factor that made an atheist an atheist.

So maybe a minute fraction of costs of weddings go to the churches.

My point stands. More weddings = more money. Thanks, Con.

Churches are private property when it comes to marriage and they have the right to decide who gets to get married in them through whatever criteria they set up.

Just saying so doesn't make it true....

Well of course atheists should be allowed to marry, what idiot doesnt think so?

Actually, there are many people who don't believe this, just google it. I only initiated this debate hoping that there was someone that actually believed that atheists should not be allowed to marry. I know one person in particular that believes that marriage, no matter where it is, is holy. Therefore, this debate was not for an easy win. Con just made it seem that way by not actually arguing.

I merely hijacked it and took a hit to my win percentage so that this debate wouldnt clog up the challenge section like all the other debates also geared for an easy win.

Again, this was not made for an easy win. Someone that disagreed could have easily accepted it. Con just did so before anyone who could've been serious about this debate could.

Votes:
Con continued to troll.
I posed actual points, Con did not refute them.
Con went off topic, and didn't cover the actual resolution.
When Con mentioned the resolution, he claimed it to be in my favor.

For all of these reasons, please vote Pro in today's debate.
imabench

Con

I have done DDO a service, we all know this was an easy win for the Pro, I just gave it to him for free

Thanks for reading anyways :D
Debate Round No. 5
14 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whyt3nn3rdy 4 years ago
whyt3nn3rdy
It wasn't that I knew people here who believed it, it was that I knew someone in real life who believed it, therefore I thought that there might be others. She told me that marriage (whether in a church or not) is a holy practice. Therefore, atheists should not marry.
Posted by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
thats exactly what I was thinking. I doubt there is someone on here who honestly believes that athiests shouldnt marry, and even if there is what possible valid argument could they make?
Posted by Kinesis 4 years ago
Kinesis
Pro's response was hilarious! But who thinks that atheists shouldn't be allowed to get married? :/
Posted by waterskier 4 years ago
waterskier
pro is for religious inequality, something this country (if you live in america) was founded to stop
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
Im impressed Pro! Ive never met someone who can troll as hard as me!

This will make history :D
Posted by whyt3nn3rdy 5 years ago
whyt3nn3rdy
Scratch that, this'll be fun. :D
Posted by whyt3nn3rdy 5 years ago
whyt3nn3rdy
I totally didn't mean to post this, but sure.
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
exactly :D
Posted by Thaddeus 5 years ago
Thaddeus
All Pro has to do is reject your definition to win Ima.
Posted by imabench 5 years ago
imabench
oh hell yes :D
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by vmpire321 4 years ago
vmpire321
whyt3nn3rdyimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con mainly trolled Pro, who was actually trying to debate lol. Oh well... Con also somewhat conceded in the last round.
Vote Placed by Mrparkers 4 years ago
Mrparkers
whyt3nn3rdyimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Con essentially conceded
Vote Placed by Cobo 4 years ago
Cobo
whyt3nn3rdyimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: The counter trolling or pro was brilliant lol. and a FF from Con gets him argument points
Vote Placed by seraine 4 years ago
seraine
whyt3nn3rdyimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro actually was trying to debate this topic seriously, so I will give him my vote.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 4 years ago
1dustpelt
whyt3nn3rdyimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: FF in last round
Vote Placed by Travniki 4 years ago
Travniki
whyt3nn3rdyimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Normally cons trolling would give him a loss ona debate like this, but it was unnaceptable for pro to try and frame the debate as "Atheists don't deserve civil liberties", I am tying this because Pro was grossely flippant everytime Con tried to bring churches and religion into it, and that is the only arguable point.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
whyt3nn3rdyimabenchTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: CON trolled the whole thing, and last round he seemed to essentially FF that round (hence conduct). If anything, pro went into this wanting a valid debate and posting valid points. CON ruined a good debate and therefore pro gets the win.