The Instigator
MuhammadAbrar
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
platoandaristotle
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Lesbians cannot call there "mates" wives due to the fact that marriage is a religious concept

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The Voting Period Ends In
15days16hours52minutes45seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/1/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 627 times Debate No: 103325
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (20)
Votes (2)

 

MuhammadAbrar

Pro

Because in religion there isnt any concept of a "Homosexual" Marriage (Marriage is a religious concept after all) of root values (original texts), the concept of a "husband to Husband" and a "Wife to Wife" is non existent - and just should call each other a couple or "Mates" for people's understanding.
platoandaristotle

Con

I agree to this debate.
What I disagree with is the idea that marriage is fundamentally religious. While it may be sanctioned by religion, it is not itself religious.
Testifying to this is the fact that jews, muslims, Hindus, and secularists all marry.
According to evolutionary ethicists, marriage's origins are not known, but many cultures have legends about it, and the surrounding cultures have always changed over time. ( Hobhouse, Leonard Trelawny (1906) Morals in evolution: a study in comparative ethics, New York, H. Holt and Co, p. 180.)
So if lesbians are secular, they can call mates "wives" because religion is not guiding what counts as a proper marriage.
Debate Round No. 1
MuhammadAbrar

Pro

I did not refer to the roots of which the words came about, but reasons of why and for what it was used for. I thought I made that quite obvious.
platoandaristotle

Con

Well, this has been confusing so far.
First you have an argument that marriage is a religious concept - and I point out that there is no evidence for marriage beginning with religion.
Next, you say that you are talking about the root of the words "wife" and "husband" and how that is fundamentally heterosexual - I point out that they are derived from old gender pronouns.
And now you seem to be pointing to the colloquial use of that word. The definitions of words are whatever the public uses them for, and the public (and most dictionaries) uses the word "wife" to mean a women engaged in a marriage and "husband" to mean a married man. The phrase "Her wife" can coherently refer to the partner of a lesbian because contemporary use is what matters in a definition.
That being said, outside of a marriage, it would not make sense to call a lesbian's partner a "wife."
I apologize for any confusion that has occured. You can tell me if I am still getting it wrong.
Debate Round No. 2
MuhammadAbrar

Pro

So wait hold on then, explain to me how Homosexual marriage exist within any religious context (original concept - not the new changing hypocrisy, just the original roots). How is marriage not a religious invented concept, Historically speaking that is? Cause that would clarify things here.
platoandaristotle

Con

Like I said earlier - there is absolutely no evidence for a religious origin to marriage. Commitments like marriage have existed for all of recorded history.
Many religions (such as Inuit tribal religion) have stories involving homosexual couples. In Inuit tribal religion, the gods firs created two men, and then created women after realizing that they could not reproduce.
Marriage is established in Hammurabi's Code as well. It is probable that earlier tribal governments thought of formally wedding couples; whether or not it was a religious union is unknown.
Debate Round No. 3
MuhammadAbrar

Pro

The Inuit argument still doesnt prove that in that cultural religion Homosexual marriage is allowed. I asked my Inuit Friend about the point you made, and that you are correct about the origin Story, but that you interpreted it totally wrong. The moral of that story was simply not to be homosexual because it is nonfunctional and has no purpose. So my argument is neither wrong or right, because neither me or you have solid global historical evidence. This is quite unsettling.
platoandaristotle

Con

Yes, indeed. Neither of us has any reason to believe that marriage is fundamentally religious.
So we are forced to go with the cultural definition - a union between to people who are attracted to each other, no matter the gender.

Debate Round No. 4
MuhammadAbrar

Pro

Highly (By that I mean VERY HIGHLY) Disagreeable, in which I must kindly decline your notion of acceptance. But because both of us lack solid authentic fact, I'll remain neutral on my regards to the debate - for now. Thank you.
platoandaristotle

Con

Not much to say here, let's just go on and vote.
Debate Round No. 5
20 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by MuhammadAbrar 5 months ago
MuhammadAbrar
Canis, Shut the *Beep* up. Seriously man?
Posted by canis 5 months ago
canis
I can call my car my wife. I just have to make the concept..
Posted by MuhammadAbrar 5 months ago
MuhammadAbrar
I did not refer to the roots of which the words came about, but reasons of why and for what it was used for. I thought I made that quite obvious.
Posted by FanboyMctroll 5 months ago
FanboyMctroll
So what should they call them "Carpet munchers"!!! Sorry couldn't resist LOL!!
Posted by platoandaristotle 5 months ago
platoandaristotle
Sorry for dupe. Thought it failed to post.
Posted by platoandaristotle 5 months ago
platoandaristotle
Responding to Muhammad:
Maybe you should have said so in the debate round 1 or 2?
The word "Wife" originates from Old Norse for "woman"
"Husband" is from Old English for "master of the house"
See dictionary.com
Posted by platoandaristotle 5 months ago
platoandaristotle
Responding to Muhammad:
Maybe you should have said so in the debate round 1 or 2?
The word "Wife" originates from Old Norse for "woman"
"Husband" is from Old English for "master of the house"
See dictionary.com
Posted by MuhammadAbrar 5 months ago
MuhammadAbrar
Srry , I believe I meant to write "Separate Gender" in line 3
Posted by MuhammadAbrar 5 months ago
MuhammadAbrar
You are not understanding what I mean by religious concept. Religious concept in this reference is pointing the the root and the nature of the terms "Wife" and "Husband." In both there respective nature they are words that are rooted from religion with there own respective points of reference to separate and make people understand gender difference, however, the case of marriage was a bit more complex than that. To put in in simple words, it represented monogamy with the mixture of scientific analogy through religion. To sum it up, based on the roots of the these terms - "Wife" is a point of reference to someone who has a Male counter part, while "Husband" is a point of reference to someone who has a solid female counterpart. Therefore by that standard, Homosexual "couples" cannot call each "Husband to Husband" or "Wife to Wife" - because it will make absolutely no sense.
Posted by stemaclean 5 months ago
stemaclean
Even if marriage began as a religious construct, does not mean that it stays that way.

Realistically, I don't think it was, and it certainly did not originate with the Abrahamic faiths if it did.

So, in both cases, you are left with the idea that the construct of marriage is not really owned, and doesn't need to be kept as it was.

As with all social contracts, they develop and change with time. It went from being a family building block that was decided on by families, not individuals, to being a recognition of the love and commitment of one person for another. I don't think you could get society to go back to having it as a means for ensuring the people breed.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 1 month ago
BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2
MuhammadAbrarplatoandaristotleTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Same reason as Phenenas's!
Vote Placed by Phenenas 5 months ago
Phenenas
MuhammadAbrarplatoandaristotleTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con made just a couple points, but Pro had no argument at all. He simply bickered about syntax until the debate was over, completely ignoring his opponent's source-backed information.