The Instigator
Hirakula
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
strategyzrox
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points

Homosexual Marriage Should Be Legalized Everywhere

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 5 votes the winner is...
Hirakula
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/29/2013 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,200 times Debate No: 38282
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (21)
Votes (5)

 

Hirakula

Pro

Greetings.
I will be arguing the point that homosexual marriage should be legalized. I feel that any law, especially one in the U.S., which likes to pride itself on being the Land of the Free, that prohibits homosexual marriage is unfounded and does not deserve to take effect.
I feel there is no legitimate reason for the banning of homosexual marriage.
The first round is NOT for acceptance - instead, it should be where my opponent offers his/her argument for the illegalization of homosexual marriage.
Before concluding, I would like to mention that I am not homosexual or bisexual, and I am not arguing for my own freedom to marry, so I am not biased in any way.
strategyzrox

Con

The state can not perform a marriage any more than it can perform a baptism. A marriage is a RELIGIOUS ceremony that the state only has the power to recognize, and even then, should not. That the government ever involved itself in any marriage-- gay or straight-- is a gross violation of the separation of church and state. Marriage is the union of two human beings by God, and thus, the state has no more authority to permit marriage then to permit human beings to turn into hamsters, or to permit human beings to fly. Such a law has no meaning.
Debate Round No. 1
Hirakula

Pro

My opponent claims that marriage is a religious occasion, and so the government should be eliminated from the picture. If this was true (which it is not, as I will make clear later), then my opponent shall have easily lost the debate. If laws had no business in the regulation of marriage, as my opponent claims is a desirable situation, then the government would not be allowed to forbid homosexual marriage. My opponent also makes the false argument that the state has no authority to permit homosexual marriage - the opposite is true; the state has no authority to forbid it.

Many religions have condemned homosexual marriage, and the organization behind such condemnation is not, nor will ever be, forced to marry homosexual couples within their religion.

The prompt of this debate is not "All religions should allow gays to marry." The prompt is "Homosexual Marriage Should Be Legalized Everywhere." Legalization does not mean required. If a religious organization does not desire their followers to be homosexual, they will not be required to accept homosexuality - the only requirement is that they must not force their disallowance on others. Their lack of acceptance need not be enforced universally. Legal marriage is not the same as religious marriage.

http://en.wikipedia.org...

"People marry for many reasons, including: legal, social, libidinal, emotional, financial, spiritual, and religious."
Marriage is not exclusively a religious event. Note that 'religious' is even at the very last spot on the list, 'legal' being first.
strategyzrox

Con

Thanks for continuing the debate. Sorry If I seem like I'm shouting through part of this; I don't yet know how to italicize my text.

"Legal marriage is not the same as religious marriage."

I think that this is our main point of contention. I am proposing that there is, and can be, NO SUCH THING as "legal marriage", as marriage is a religious institution. Marriage is when God Unites two people, and the law has nothing to do with it. There is a reason there is a distinction between Marriage and Civil Unions, which are often legally identical but can have vastly different spiritual properties.

Marriage is, in principle, only possible in the spiritual sense. People may get married for reasons that are not spiritual, but marriage is a spiritual act.

"Note that 'religious' is even at the very last spot on the list, 'legal' being first."

I don't see how this matters at all.

"My opponent claims that marriage is a religious occasion, and so the government should be eliminated from the picture. If this was true (which it is not, as I will make clear later), then my opponent shall have easily lost the debate. If laws had no business in the regulation of marriage, as my opponent claims is a desirable situation, then the government would not be allowed to forbid homosexual marriage. My opponent also makes the false argument that the state has no authority to permit homosexual marriage - the opposite is true; the state has no authority to forbid it."

I can see I need some more clarification here.

there are three ways that I am aware of that a government can attempt to "legalize" marriage.

1. It can attempt to permit the marriage.

2. It can attempt to recognize the marriage.

3. and It can attempt to perform the marriage.

It can also attempt to restrict the marriage, but this is not an act of legalization.

The government has no business in marriage in different respects. It SHOULDN'T have any business in ANY marriage regulation, but it CAN'T perform a marriage, or recognize a marriage that simply does not and can not exist, or give anyone the license to wed when marriage is impossible. When you say you want to legalize marriage everywhere, you almost certainly do not mean solely the absence of restrictive laws. As far as I know, Homosexual marriage IS legalized mostly everywhere in that sense. Most states do not actively prohibit homosexual marriages. They just don't recognize them. And I may be mistaken, but it seems that you want the government to RECOGNIZE homosexual "marriages", which is something the government can not do.

In analogy, suppose a group arose which wanted "rock baptism" to be legalized. the Government can ALLOW the rock to be baptized, but it can't actually baptize the rocks or recognize Rock baptism, because rock baptism isn't possible. Baptism is entirely outside the possible jurisdiction of government.
Debate Round No. 2
Hirakula

Pro

Note to my opponent: to italicize text, click "Rich Text", which should be just over your text box, where you type, on the left side. It will give options such as italicizing, bolding, and underlining.

I think it's fair to say that, now, we have reached the sole contention of: does the government has any say in marriage?
I think my opponent fails to recognize that yes, marriage exists outside of religion. Within your religious beliefs, you can say that marriage is a bond made by God (or however you wish to say it), but that does not mean that all marriages are as such, or, at least, should be treated as such. For example, an atheistic couple can be married by law, but will not be married through a Church (usually). Is this marriage valid in the eyes of the government? Of course. It is legal, regardless of religion.

A large chunk of my opponent's argument hinges on the claim that state governments do not make gay marriage illegal, they simply do not recognize it, and so have no right to begin to recognize it. This is false. View the map, and its legend:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

The majority are dark red/maroon, meaning "Constitution bans same-sex civil marriage and specified or unspecified civil union types," The overwhelming majority are either dark red/maroon or red (which means "Constitution bans same-sex civil marriage"). If the state simply does not recognize same-sex marriage, it is grey/silver ("No state- or territory-wide prohibition or recognition of same-sex civil marriages or unions"). Almost no state is grey or silver, crippling my opponent's argument.

Marriage in a spiritual/religious sense is irrelevant. I'm arguing for the legalization of same-sex marriage. Key word: legal. Law. Government. Whether or not you consider marriage by law to be 'proper marriage' (i.e. through the Church/under God) is irrelevant also, because I call for the legalization of it, not the acceptance of it under religious organizations.
strategyzrox

Con

Note to my opponent: to italicize text, click "Rich Text", which should be just over your text box, where you type, on the left side. It will give options such as italicizing, bolding, and underlining.

Thanks.

I think my opponent fails to recognize that yes, marriage exists outside of religion. Within your religious beliefs, you can say that marriage is a bond made by God (or however you wish to say it), but that does not mean that all marriages are as such, or, at least, should be treated as such. For example, an atheistic couple can be married by law, but will not be married through a Church (usually). Is this marriage valid in the eyes of the government? Of course. It is legal, regardless of religion.

Marriage does not exist outside of religion, which is the point I've been trying to get across during this whole debate. Marriage is a religious word, originally meaning "the act of holy matrimony." There is a reason we make a distinction between Civil Unions and marriage, and notice that you said homosexual marriage should be legalized everywhere. If your resolution had been: "Homosexual Civil Unions should be legalized everywhere", I'd be all for it.

If a heterosexual couple gets "married" through the courts, then they are not really married; such a marriage is invalid. (unless the case is made, as it often is, that God marries non-religious couples when they get "married" in court.) When I say that the courts don't have the power to marry individuals, I don't mean it in a The-government-doesn't-have-the-power-to-curb-free-speech-because-of-the-first-ammendment kind of way, I mean it in a the-government-doesn't-have-the-power-to-reverse-gravity kind of way. It was a grave mistake for the government to get involved in marriage in any way, shape, or form, as in doing so it claimed authority over a matter that is purely spiritual in nature.

Marriage in a spiritual/religious sense is irrelevant. I'm arguing for the legalization of same-sex marriage. Key word: legal. Law. Government. Whether or not you consider marriage by law to be 'proper marriage' (i.e. through the Church/under God) is irrelevant also, because I call for the legalization of it, not the acceptance of it under religious organizations.

And likewise, I am not arguing that religions must accept homosexual marriage, I am arguing that it makes no sense to recognize by law something which does not and can not exist.

Ultimately, this boils down to the definition of marriage. And before you find some dictionary that defines marriage as between two people of the same gender, Here is a source that defines marriage as occuring strictly between men and women:

http://www.webster-dictionary.org...

The truth, as your own wikipedia source attests to in its itroductory pargraph, is that the definition of marriage is extremely difficult to pin down. There are any number of dictionaries that attempt to define marriage in either of these two ways and in other ways, and there is by no means any consensus among the general population.

It is worth noting that there was no real controversy with the difinition of marriage until Gay rights activists took issue with the definition at the time. It is the first time I am aware of that the definition of an established English word has been attempted to be changed to suit the interests of a particular group. it is bad enough that words like "awesome" and "literally" seem to have gradually lost their meaning over time; now we have individuals intentionally trying to chage the definitions of established words? what's next, the KKK lobbying to define racism as "animosity toward other races except blacks", so that they can truthfullly tell others that they aren't rascist? If a group doesn't like what a word means, they should make up a new word. Some people recognise this, which is why we have civil unions.

But ultimately, words still mean something, even if the majority of the population misuses the word. And the only way to determine what the word actually means is to consider what it was intended to mean when it was first formed. It is inconcievable that marriage originally meant anything other than holy matrimony, expecially considering the political and scholarly dominance that the catholic church had at the time modern english was being formed. But you don't need to take my word for it:

http://www.etymonline.com...


Note that even when the non-theological, figurative definition of marriage formed (probably through linguistic evolution, and so one could argue that even this definition is not valid), it still didn't include anything about homosexual relationships.

As to the rest of your argument...

...Almost no state is grey or silver, crippling my opponent's argument.

1. that was not a large chunk of my argument, only a small peice of it, and so it was in no way crippling.

2. By "state" I meant "country." You did say everywhere in your resolution.

3. Such laws are redundant, but I suppose that shouldn't be surprizing, considering all the many redundant and useless government policies. All these states are doing is banning something that is already impossible for any human being to do.

If you can provide a similar chart showing the policies of all countries, and by "legalization" you simply mean that governments should stop restricting homosexual marriages, then you still need to provide reasons for why you think this matters at all. How would lifting a restriction on an already impossible action do anyone any good?
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
Hirakula

Pro

"Marriage does not exist outside of religion, which is the point I've been trying to get across during this whole debate. Marriage is a religious word, originally meaning "the act of holy matrimony." There is a reason we make a distinction between Civil Unions and marriage, and notice that you said homosexual marriage should be legalized everywhere. If your resolution had been: "Homosexual Civil Unions should be legalized everywhere", I'd be all for it.

If a heterosexual couple gets "married" through the courts, then they are not really married; such a marriage is invalid. (unless the case is made, as it often is, that God marries non-religious couples when they get "married" in court.) When I say that the courts don't have the power to marry individuals, I don't mean it in a The-government-doesn't-have-the-power-to-curb-free-speech-because-of-the-first-amendment kind of way, I mean it in a the-government-doesn't-have-the-power-to-reverse-gravity kind of way. It was a grave mistake for the government to get involved in marriage in any way, shape, or form, as in doing so it claimed authority over a matter that is purely spiritual in nature."

Religion DOES exist outside of marriage. Your own sources, as well as my own, have confirmed that:

"Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws."
"People marry for many reasons, including: legal, social, libidinal, emotional, financial, spiritual, and religious."
http://en.wikipedia.org...


"The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal union..."
http://www.webster-dictionary.org...

"... according to the laws or customs of the place."
http://www.webster-dictionary.org...

It's clear that marriage is ABSOLUTELY NOT an exclusively religious occurrence.

"If a heterosexual couple gets "married" through the courts, then they are not really married; such a marriage is invalid."

I have just proven that marriage is exists outside of religion and "God", and one could even go so far as to say marriage is primarily legal, at least nowadays, and so it is ABSOLUTELY valid, and so it is the courts decision as to whether or not homosexual marriage is allowed. I have also proven in past rounds that most courts in the U.S. do not simply ignore same-sex marriage, but outright bans it. I'm arguing that they should not, and my opponent has failed to efficiently argue that they should.

"Ultimately, this boils down to the definition of marriage. And before you find some dictionary that defines marriage as between two people of the same gender, Here is a source that defines marriage as occurring strictly between men and women:

http://www.webster-dictionary.org...;

You used this source in order to suggest that marriage is exclusively religious, if the entirety of your text is examined - yet, instead, you have used to strongly suggest that it is not, which I have shown already in this argument.

"1. that was not a large chunk of my argument, only a small peace of it, and so it was in no way crippling.

2. By "state" I meant "country." You did say everywhere in your resolution.

3. Such laws are redundant, but I suppose that shouldn't be surprising, considering all the many redundant and useless government policies. All these states are doing is banning something that is already impossible for any human being to do."

It was the epitome of all of your argumentation. You have been attempting to convince me and the readers that marriage is not something that state laws can illegalize - it's religious, so they receive no say, which is why my argument is supposedly redundant. I have shown this false, as the majority of U.S. states specifically abolish same-sex marriage.

"All these states are doing is banning something that is already impossible for any human being to do."

By this, I expect you are trying to reinforce your idea that gay marriage is a contradiction. As I feel I have sufficiently eliminated your other arguments, and that the only other reason you may think it "impossible" is that you have found a definition that states that marriage is between a man and a woman, I see that this line is essentially saying: "The government should not legalize same-sex marriage because marriage is not currently usually between two people of the same sex". That is a nonsense argument, and I dismiss it as such.
strategyzrox

Con

Religion DOES exist outside of marriage. Your own sources, as well as my own, have confirmed that:

"Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a socially or ritually recognized union or legal contract between spousesthat establishes rights and obligations between them, between them and their children, and between them and their in-laws."
"People marry for many reasons, including: legal, social, libidinal, emotional, financial, spiritual, and religious."
http://en.wikipedia.org......


"The act of marrying, or the state of being married; legal union..."
http://www.webster-dictionary.org......

"... according to the laws or customs of the place."
http://www.webster-dictionary.org......

It's clear that marriage is ABSOLUTELY NOT an exclusively religious occurrence.

...

You used this source in order to suggest that marriage is exclusively religious, if the entirety of your text is examined - yet, instead, you have used to strongly suggest that it is not, which I have shown already in this argument.


I think you may have misunderstood why I included a dictionary definition of the word: "marriage". It was to show that dictionary definitions are unreliable, and to prove the statement your wikipedia article makes:

"The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures..."

And that includes different cultures within the same nation.

I was trying to show that different English speaking people define marriage very differently. Some dictionaries, and some people, define marriage as between a man and a woman, and others as also between a man and a man. What I was not trying to do at the point when I listed that reference was to show that marriage is exclusively religious, or even exclusively between men and women. That is the bulk of my argument, yes, but I was not directly trying to show it through dictionary sourcces.

Even if every dictionary in print said that marriage can exist outside of a spiritual context (and they don't, as my etymology dictionary source defines marriage in a non-theological sense as strictly figurative) it wouldn't mean anything because the actual meaning of a word depends on what the word orginally meant, and I think I have sufficiently shown that the word orginally meant nothing less than holy matrimony, in a strictly theological sense, through my reasoning that the scholarly, powerful catholic church at the time would have undoubtedly shaped the definition of the word, as my etymology source confirms.

Again, the accepted definition of marriage was a spiritual union between a man and a woman, until a particular special interest group (gay rights advocates) attempted to change the definition.

And again, even if a special rights group hadn't tried to change the definition of an accepted English word, it would still mean what it meant when it was formed. "Awesome" still means something inspiring awe, even though the majority of English speakers abuse the word.

And another point: With the dawn of the word "civil union", more and more people are recognising that marriage, by definition, applies only to religious ceremonies. I suspect the trend is the opposite of what you imply.

It was the epitome of all of your argumentation. You have been attempting to convince me and the readers that marriage is not something that state laws can illegalize - it's religious, so they receive no say, which is why my argument is supposedly redundant. I have shown this false, as the majority of U.S. states specifically abolish same-sex marriage.

I have been attempting to argue that homosexual marriage is impossible to leagalize in some respects because homosexual marriage is a an impossible contradiction. Governments may pass laws that legalize gay marriage in every respect, but such laws would essentially be lies, since they would only be legalizing homosexual civil unions. They can also outlaw actual homosexual marriage, but such a law is redundant because homosexual marriage is impossible anyway. If by "legalize homosexual marriage" you meant to get rid of all laws abolishing it, you'd need to explain why doing away with a redundant law would benefit anybody--something you have not done in this debate.

Additionally, note that as the one making the positive statement, you are the one with the BoP, and the only reasons you have put forward for why Homosexual marriage should be legaized everywhere topple if I have sufficiently shown that my account of the definition of marriage is accurate. The voters will have to decide whether I have, since that is the point this whole debate rests on.

Lastly, I'd like to thank you for a great first debate. I enjoyed it very much, wish you luck in this and future debates, and look forward to debating you and other members of DDO in the future.

Strategyzrox (con)
Debate Round No. 5
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by strategyzrox 3 years ago
strategyzrox
a major source of frustration that I've had during these discussions is that the English language doesn't have a word which means BOTH a civil AND a spiritual ceremony, which is what most people tend to think of when they think of marriage. I suspect that the word "marriage" has gradually expanded to fill this role, in much the same way that the word "he" has expanded to take on the role the third-person non-gender-specific pronoun. We need some new words. Let's get to work, linguists!
Posted by strategyzrox 3 years ago
strategyzrox
(continued)

additionally, we have to more sharply define what we mean when we speak of rights. a large number of
rights theorists hold that the right to something is simply the right not to have that thing forcibly taken from you. As I understand it, this is certainly the consensus for natural rights. In that respect, governments do have the power to forcibly keep people from being spiritually united (married), perhaps by keeping the couple separated. If this is what is meant by the right to marriage, (and I have no reason to think that it is not) then I agree completely. While states technically have the power to make laws concerning marriages, in some limited cases, no civil institution--ESPECIALLY the UN--should actually use this power. If a Sate makes legislation concerning marriage, a purely spiritual institution, or a particular church forces their own view of marriage on the state, the separation of church and state is violated , which in turn threatens religious liberty.

I want to be clear here: any time a court performs a unitive ceremony for two people, whether a same sex couple or not, whether any church recognises it or not, a civil union has taken place. Whenever a church performs a unitive ceremony for two people, whether a same sex couple or not, whether the government recognizes it or not, a marriage has (allegedly) taken place. (whether the marriage has actually taken place depends on what religion you talk to.) Governments and churches just need to keep themselves concerned purely with their own respective ceremonies.
Posted by strategyzrox 3 years ago
strategyzrox
@oppai_lover666:

If I were defining "civil union" as somehow a more wattered-down, lesser, partially impure form of marriage, I think you would have a compelling argument. And that is, unfortunately, why many people support civil unions and not marriage. But that is not the only reason, and it is not mine. I am defining marriage as a spiritual union, and a civil union as a.... well, as a civil, as opposed to spiritual, union. They mean two entirely different, but related, things. I am saying that BY THE ORIGINAL DEFINITION, marriage is fundamentally spiritual, whereas a civil union is most certainly not. Heck, I hadn't thought about this until now, but I'd be entirely fine with same sex MARRIAGE if some religion claimed that it were possible for same sex couples to be married. I personally wouldn't accept that they were truly married, but at least they could legitimately claim to be, according to their own beliefs.

as to your second point...

first, be aware that the United Nations marriage rights as presented here allow for incestuous and polygamous marriage. You may or may not be fine with that; I just want to be sure you are aware of the implications of accepting the United Nations as an acceptable authority on marriage.

Second, the United Nations is NOT an acceptable authority on marriage. If they are trying to ascribe legal rights to marriage, then they have fallen into the usual fallacy that marriage is a legal institution, when it is not. One can't really fault them; they are politicians, not linguists.

(continued)
Posted by oppai_lover666 3 years ago
oppai_lover666
@strategyzrox

You say that you are all for "same-sex civil-unions" but that just means you further discrimination. For one, I want to point out that by creating a different word, you are discriminating against a whole group of people. That would be the equivalent of saying "White children can go to school, because it originally was a white-person tradition, but all kids of other races have to go to 'Pizza', which is the same as school but we can't call it school because that is a white-person thing (pardon the odd word, I'm hungry and couldn't think of another word)". By saying the LGBTQ community can only use a lesser form of "the word" than you are the same as the racists who made black children drink from different water fountains as white children. My second point would be that by denying a party to marry, you are violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (agreed to by the UN), and, thus, violating the rights of the people. The UDoHR states in Article 16, "(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State." (http://www.un.org...). Now before you argue that this does not apply to homosexuals, the document states "men and women", not "a man and a women" which would mean that any combination of "men and women" (ie man and man, woman and woman, man and woman, woman and man, man and trans, man and himself, etc.). Also, the UDoHR says they can marry "without any limitation due to race, nationality, or religion" meaning it's not a strictly religious practice.
Posted by strategyzrox 3 years ago
strategyzrox
@ oppai_lover666:

We have to distinguish between the definition of voting and its legal qualifications. The definition of voting is and always has been to give a formal choice in order to determine some group action, but the legal qualifications have changed over time.

Unfortunately, words do change over time. However:

1. We should prevent this whenever possible, as it promotes misunderstandings between generations and people of differing time periods, and

2. Whenever a word is in dispute (as is the case here) what better source to turn to to gather consensus than the original definition of the word?

I may have implied that I was limiting religious practice to mean monotheistic practices in my debate, but this was unintentional. As I told Briantheliberal, the actual religion that performs the ceremony is a secondary concern, and perhaps shouldn't be a concern at all.

I agree that we need to reform social practices as the need arises, and I am personally all for same sex civil unions. What we do NOT need to do is reform the definitions of established words at the whim of particular special interest groups. That's just asking for trouble, and if you can give one example of a historical (or even hypothetical) case where it would be beneficial, I'm all ears.
Posted by strategyzrox 3 years ago
strategyzrox
sorry Brian! I honestly did not mean to write "brain".
Posted by strategyzrox 3 years ago
strategyzrox
@braintheliberal: Your comment is true enough-- IF one holds the definition of marriage that is widely accepted today, rather than the original definition. We have come to think of marriage as having legal, social components, but this is a mistake.

Cultures have acknowledged social, legal, romantic, and cultural contracts between two people without spiritual and religious components, but the English word for this concept, if there is one, is "civil union" NOT "marriage"

I should also note that most of these contracts DID include the concept of a spiritual and religious bond, and so they could be reasonably called marriages. The exact religion that performs the ceremony is ultimately trivial.
Posted by strategyzrox 3 years ago
strategyzrox
@ Hirakula:

the word most certainly IS in dispute. The idea that the definition of marriage applies to legal as well as religious ceremonies has gained wide acceptance, but there are still those who dispute it, and we are not not as uncommon as many seem to think. Again, the reason why anyone makes a distinction between "civil union" and "marriage" is that "civil union" is a non-religious, strictly legal term, whereas marriage has by its definition a religious component to it. I just go one step further, and claim that there is NO legal aspect to marriage, which is supported by the original definition of the word.

The idea that the definition of marriage applies to couples of the same sex is in even more dispute than the idea that the definition applies to both religious and legal ceremonies. It seems to me inconceivable to make the claim that the definition of marriage is NOT in dispute. It is one of the main fronts in the current culture wars.
Posted by oppai_lover666 3 years ago
oppai_lover666
@strategyzrox

If we didn't let "special interest groups" and "activists" help reform definitions, we would exist in an extremely prejudicious world. Just think, when America declared it's independence the word "vote" meant "to partake in the choosing of the outcome of an election by a WHITE, LAND OWNING, PROTESTANT MALE". Land-owning was soon changed, as was white and protestant, and finally male. You cannot say that because an "original" definition says something means one thing then it must only mean that thing. In language, generations come and use different words to mean different things. Also, like @briantheliberal said, marriage has existed far before it was part of any religion. Also, you limit the "religious practice" definition to only religions that believe in ONE GOD as opposed to religions with zero to 10000 gods. If we didn't reform policies and create new social norms based on what we know (and not just ignorant beliefs), then we would still be the same Athens democracy that existed thousands of years ago. In Greece, only men were allowed to vote and slavery was legal because it was believed women were not intelligent enough and slaves were born to be slaves. If we still had that society, compared to ours we would be seen as the most prejudicious state there is. We have to grow and change in order to maintain being moral and just.
Posted by Hirakula 3 years ago
Hirakula
The definition isn't the problem. The word has changed, it's NOT in dispute. It is now different, one cannot argue that it is still the same as the old definition, and so the old definition must now affect our laws.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
HirakulastrategyzroxTied
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: Even Con's source gives a definition that includes "any close union", which isn't necessarily religious. Anyways, Con didn't really back up his claims.
Vote Placed by Diirez 3 years ago
Diirez
HirakulastrategyzroxTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Con seems to be living outside of the modern world where marriage is a legal and religious ceremony. Unfortunately, his arguments failed to prove anything while Pro did a wonderful job proving that homosexual marriage should be legalized.
Vote Placed by HenryGBR 3 years ago
HenryGBR
HirakulastrategyzroxTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Although he used better spelling and grammar, con made absolutely fatal errors in many of his judgements in particular: argument in round one. This was swiftly and superbly picked up on by pro who gave his argument which ACTUALLY made sense. Pro's arguments were much more concise and to the point with minimal waffle, something that cannot be said about con.
Vote Placed by TheSilentHorseman 3 years ago
TheSilentHorseman
HirakulastrategyzroxTied
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: Pro did a wonderful job of proving that marriage doesn't need to be a religious institution--the solitary burden that he needed to achieve in order to be the winner of the debate. Con tried to make that argument but boiled down only to a bunch of assumptions.
Vote Placed by Beverlee 3 years ago
Beverlee
HirakulastrategyzroxTied
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's argument hinges on whether or not marriage can be nonreligious, which it can (atheists can marry) Pro does a good job of proving this.