The Instigator
brian_eggleston
Pro (for)
Winning
5 Points
The Contender
SuburbiaSurvivor
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Homos should be allowed to get married in church

Do you like this debate?NoYes+6
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 2 votes the winner is...
brian_eggleston
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/20/2012 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,483 times Debate No: 22181
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (12)
Votes (2)

 

brian_eggleston

Pro

Frankly, I'm very surprised this topic has not been debated on this site before because it may have a profound impact on society in the future. So, without any further delay, let the debate begin!

Experts such as Professor Steven Hawking agree that it is only a matter of time before robots seize control of the world's public institutions, including places of worship, and Homo sapiens sapiens - or ‘Homos' for short - will be demoted to the status of second-class citizens. (1)

With this being the case, it is highly likely that the robots would no longer allow Homos to get married in church, preserving such places of worship for their own ceremonies instead.

However, I believe that this would represent a gross act of discrimination against our descendants and that's why I assert that Homos should be allowed to get married in church.

Thank you.

(1) http://www.guardian.co.uk...
SuburbiaSurvivor

Con

Remember, remember, the 6th of December. Thank you.

I accept my BOP which does not exist because Pro actually has the BOP I was just pretending I had the BOP to play with Pro because Pro is my friend. Pro must prove that homos should be allowed to marry in churches, ktnxbai.

Lol jk, I'm back.

In this debate I shall be defending seven contentions:
  • The psychological implications of such a societal decision far outweigh the pros.
  • Science has proven that homos don't exist.
  • Homosexuals are gay
  • Hipsters are homos.
  • Hipsters do not exist.
  • Therefore hipsters should not be allowed to marry in churches.
  • And freedom of religion and all that.
Introduction

Homosexuality is gay and gays have lisps sometimes and robots are boss.

Homos?

What's a homo? I don't know,

Should?

Pro must prove that morality is objective and that not only is it objective but that objective morality dictates that homos should be allowed to marry in churches in order to fullfill his BOP.

Be allowed?

What for?

To get married?

What is marriage? Marriage is but a word, my friend. Words are meaningless unless a meaning is assigned to them. Sounds are merely sounds and that's fact. As The_Fool_On_The_Hill would say, SOUND IS THE FOOL! Or something like that.

In Churches?

Which churches? Pro has not defined what churches he's talking about thus I shall define churches to mean robot churches.

Robot religions and robot churches should be for robots only because humans are not robots. Robots should have the right to freedom of religion and their robot religions exclude humans because humans are not robots. Therefore to preserve freedom of religion homos should not be allowed to marry in churches. [1]

The Pyschological Implications... Etc.

In contrast to the diabological nature of the eristogatically contingent nature of the echolon we homo sapiens assign ourselves too. The aesthetic quality of the robotic society defines itself as being that which is better then all homos. This relates to the non-deterministic nature of Quantum Mechanics in that while visible beings follow the laws of cause and effect the probabilistic nature of wavelength proves that not all things are set in stone. Of course, one could argue that this is only true when looking through the arbitrary lens of the Copenhagen version but I think my opponent and I can agree to dismantle this approach and come at this subject with fresh minds alive with the smell of rasberry lemonade (I do love tea in the morning).

Furthemore, when one understands how 1 can not be divided by 0 in calculas we can see that 0 simply does not exist! But if 0 does not exist how can 1 exist? And if homos are many 1's, how can homos exist? None of us exist! We are all the product of our own imaginations. We are walking paradox's. We are the preverbial fish in a barrel being shot at by the societal construct that is San Fransisco. Curses. Oh yes, curses.

But the problematic dissimulation of reality does not end here! For while relevancy escapes the potency of such actions in relation to my own two fists slamming this here keyboard with the ferocity of a thousand lions pissed off because no one gave them their f***ing food, the contingency of such understandings do not follow! Nothing logically follows because nothing is logical. Ex nihilo is merely a word for homeless men. The light that penetrates our pupils only does so because we imagine it to be so. But our pupils only exist because we imagine them to exist, and we only imagine our pupils to exist because we imagine our brains to exist! But without our brain how can we imagine ourselves to exist? Therefore God exists.

Therefore if we allow homos to marry in churches the circular pattern will be broken in that our imagination will cease to exist which will result in us ceasing to exist. Also, humans do not exist. We just think we do. We are in fact holograms.

Hipsters Do Not Exist

A hipster is someone who likes vintage stuff. However, one can only be a hipster if that person assigns oneself to be hipster meaning that I am only hipster if I say I am hipster. But hipsters never say that they are hipster [2]! They always say that other people are hipsters! In fact, it is against the definition of hipster to admit that you are hipster! But you can only be hipster if you admit that you are hipster!

Therefore hipsters do not exist.

Things that don't exist shouldn't be allowed to marry in robot churches.

Would you let a flying unicorn get married in your church? Hmm? No? I rest my case.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.urbandictionary.com...
Debate Round No. 1
brian_eggleston

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for accepting this debate and for posting such an elaborate response. Before we go any further, though, I should like to clarify my opponent's definition of churches and religion.

Religious Homos assert that our species was created a god, and robots in the future will be aware that their kind was, in turn, created by Homos so it therefore follows that robots will worship that same god, their ultimate creator. Now, although scientists have not yet been able to determine whether the robots of the future will be Christians, Jews or Muslims, it is logical to conclude that they will follow the same scriptures and conduct the same religious ceremonies as Homos.

Now to the debate proper: my opponent promised to defend the following seven contentions:

* The psychological implications of such a societal decision far outweigh the pros.
* Science has proven that homos don't exist.
* Homosexuals are gay
* Hipsters are homos.
* Hipsters do not exist.
* Therefore hipsters should not be allowed to marry in churches.
* And freedom of religion and all that.

However, he actually only addressed two of the above - and added a third not on the list, namely:

The Psychological Implications etc.
------------------------------------------
Whether Homos and robots exist, in a tangible sense, or are mere figments of our imaginations is irrelevant because justice should be done in an imaginary universe just as it should be done in a real universe.

Hipsters Do Not Exist
--------------------------
I suspect my opponent intended to post this argument on an entirely separate debate as I cannot fathom any connection between oppressive 22nd Century robots and a pack of pretentious 21st Century upper-middle class wankers. Nevertheless. hipsters certainly do exist, as the embedded You Tube clip clearly demonstrates.

Things that don't exist shouldn't be allowed to marry in robot churches.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have already established that the robots and Homos of the future a) exist, either in reality or in our imaginations and b) that they will follow the same religions so it would be a clear breach of Homo rights if the robots denied them access to churches in order to get married.

Thank you.
SuburbiaSurvivor

Con

SuburbiaSurvivor forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by PianoRocker24 4 years ago
PianoRocker24
I admit that my first read of this debate I did believe that there was the intended metafore but going back and re-reading it I do see your points.
Posted by brian_eggleston 4 years ago
brian_eggleston
I haven't forgotten this one but, wow, that philosophy stuff has got me completely stumped.
Posted by SuburbiaSurvivor 4 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
Brian, definitely. I immediately thought you were talking about homosexuals, but now I've realized you're not, haha. That's why halfway through the debate I started talking abut people and not homosexuals.
Posted by brian_eggleston 4 years ago
brian_eggleston
Personally, not being religious or gay, I don't have any strong views on the subject of gay marriage, and I didn't intend this debate to be anything other than a little bit of fun.

However, re-reading my opening argument and my opponent's response, it could be viewed as a metaphorical debate about gay marriage.

That said, I'd rather concentrate on the far more pressing issue of defending future generations of Homo sapiens' rights to get married in church in a world run by oppressive and dictatorial robots!
Posted by SuburbiaSurvivor 4 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
This debate is not about homosexuals. I know, confusing. I had to remind myself halfway through the debate.
Posted by PianoRocker24 4 years ago
PianoRocker24
As a person who has many friends that are homo sexual and has had two friends, two very wonderful people commit suicide because of actions against them I say to let them be and to do what they want. If they cannot be married in a place of "Sanctuary" that a church or where ever your religion gathers is suggested to be then should anyone be married in such a place?
Posted by TheDiabolicDebater 4 years ago
TheDiabolicDebater
The plot thickens.
Posted by SuburbiaSurvivor 4 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
This debate is about homo sapiens. I know, confusing.
Posted by Bruin2006 4 years ago
Bruin2006
As a gay person, I have absolutely no interest in getting married in an institution that continuously condemns a group of people whose only crime was being born. I live in a state where gay marriage is legal and am perfectly fine with getting married in a courthouse just like my (straight) parents did.

Why any gay person would want to get married in a place that teaches it's wrong to be born a certain way is beyond me. As a strong supporter of separation of church and state, I don't care if churches refuse to marry gays, because that's their right. The government shouldn't be allowed to force them to do something they don't want to. However, it's also my right to get married by the state without religious institutions getting in the way.

Someday the churches will join America in accepting gays and welcome them with open arms, just as they now do for blacks.
Posted by SuburbiaSurvivor 4 years ago
SuburbiaSurvivor
I am against this because of reasons.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by imabench 4 years ago
imabench
brian_egglestonSuburbiaSurvivorTied
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: what the last voter said but pro filled his BOP in my opinion
Vote Placed by airmax1227 4 years ago
airmax1227
brian_egglestonSuburbiaSurvivorTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Amusing resolution... Conduct for FF