The Instigator
f3ffy
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
flaskblob
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

Marriage is strictly religious and is between a man and a woman

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
flaskblob
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/21/2013 Category: Religion
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,505 times Debate No: 34020
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (4)

 

f3ffy

Pro

Marriage comes from the church, and the church intended for it to be between a man and a woman. Why should the government be allowed to interfere with religion? People argue separation of church and state, but that's just it, the state is interfering with the church. Marriage should stay between a man and a woman, because that's how it was intended, it isn't fair to go and change original, religious views and beliefs.
flaskblob

Con

The technology that allows individuals to modify their pitch (autotune) was originally intended to monitor depths for oil drilling. Should its use to modify individuals voices be banned since that wasn't its original intention?

Marriage developed from nomadic cultures in which a woman was purchased from a father for exclusive sexual access. Women were generally treated as possessions in these nomadic societies and the ritual of marriage had absolutely nothing to do with the church.

I agree that the government should not be able to interfere with marriage and thus should give absolutely no privileges to married couples over single individuals and that gay couples should be able to perform whatever ceremonies they wish and call their union whatever they like without government interference.

Also the word "faggot" was originally defined as a bundle of wood, but hey you don't see the gays complaining about changing the definition of words.
Debate Round No. 1
f3ffy

Pro

I figured someone was going to bring up something about it's original use. But yes, drills aren't music. Just like 2 men getting 'married' isn't marriage.

I've yet to look further into that early period marriage you mentioned, but I'm sure it wasn't actually marriage either. It sounds like it'd be like a civil union or something, which, yes, is different. Marriage did actually derive from the church, so this must be something else.

I can't rebut against that faggot point, because I agree with it. It makes sense, and especially for words that are insulting, sacred, etc., we shouldn't be allowed to change the definition.
flaskblob

Con

Definitions:

Lexical Fallacy (Semantics) = The belief that the historical development of a term determines its current meaning

Appeal to Heaven = Asserting the conclusion must be accepted because it is the "will of God" or "the will of the gods". In the mind of those committing the fallacy, and those allowing to pass as a valid reason, the will of God is not only knowable, but the person making the argument knows it, and no other reason is necessary.

Appeal to tradition = (also known as argumentum ad antiquitatem, appeal to antiquity, or appeal to common practice) is a common fallacy in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it correlates with some past or present tradition. The appeal takes the form of "this is right because we've always done it this way."

Equivocation = ("to call by the same name") is classified as an informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words (words with multiple meanings).

Argument

My opponent has offered no compelling evidence for why the government should be able to interfere with private social ceremonies of relationship commitment.

He has also offered no reasons for why tax benefits should be randomly given to married heterosexual individuals over single individuals or homosexual married individuals

He has also offered no reasons for why the government should ban people from using certain words to describe themselves or to describe other people.

I await his evidence and argument. As my opponent is attempting to use the government to take away rights, ban words, and grant tax bonuses to select groups of the population, the burden of proof rests solely upon him. Currently he has only used several logical fallacies to justify his ridiculous viewpoint (and it is worthy of ridicule).

1. "Marriage should stay between a man and a woman, because that's how it was intended"

Fallacy = Appeal to Tradition

2. "Marriage comes from the church"

Fallacy = Appeal to Heaven

3. "I've yet to look further into that early period marriage you mentioned, but I'm sure it wasn't actually marriage either. It sounds like it'd be like a civil union or something"

Fallacy = Equivocation

4. "we shouldn't be allowed to change the definition"

Fallacy = Lexical
Debate Round No. 2
f3ffy

Pro

Opposite sex, married couples get tax breaks to help raise a family. Gays shouldn't have this because they can't raise families, yet they will get it because gay marriage is legal. The purpose of the tax breaks is to help married couples raise a family.

Some might argue that infertile couples shouldn't be allowed to marry in this case, but most couples don't necessarily know they're infertile. Same sex couples can't even try, they obviously can't produce a child.

Of course I'm using those fallacies; they're the only logical ones. 'Marriage' is a tradition, it is holy, and it only has one meaning, so why wouldn't I use those?
There really isn't any other good ways to argue this subject, because it's not about rights (no, it is not a right), or tax breaks, but if you would like me to argue those, I can. Instead, it is about tradition, church, and definitions. If there were any other better ways to support, I'd use them, but all you need to do is look at those three things and know, marriage is between a man and a woman.
flaskblob

Con

"There really isn't any other good ways to argue this subject"
"Of course I'm using those fallacies; they're the only logical ones."
" If there were any other better ways to support, I'd use them"

I'll keep these as trophies.

"The purpose of the tax breaks is to help married couples raise a family."

My opponent has offered no logical reasoning for why children benefit the taxpayer.

it's not about rights (no, it is not a right)

I would like my opponent to explain why he thinks the ability to use words to refer to yourself or others is not a right.

I would also like my opponent to explain why the ability to throw a party for yourself is not a right.

"(it's not about) tax breaks"

As far as the government is concerned, it's only about tax breaks. Saying "X doesn't matter" is not logical justification for X not mattering.


Debate Round No. 3
f3ffy

Pro

I am unsure of what you're trying to get at, but I'd like to see your side of this debate. So far, all you've argued is that nomads used to sell woman for marriage, then you rebut by pointing out my flaws. Does this mean you have no actual argument? You're just going to stick through, pointing out small things until it closes and you can win because I dig myself deeper and deeper? Lets hear what you have to say this time
flaskblob

Con

My opponent has made no new arguments and has refused to give any logical explanation of his existing points. Therefore I have nothing nee to refute. The burden of proof clearly rests upon my opponent
Debate Round No. 4
f3ffy

Pro

I have provided sufficient evidence and a proper argument since the beginning. If you will recall, I stated evidence about government taxing, and religious freedoms, and definitions of words. Since then, I have not been given any reason to provide any more arguments because you have failed to rebute.

So let me review and conclude.

The word, term, and meaning of the word 'marriage' originated from Christianity, and is meant to be between a man and a woman. The government has no authority over the church to go and change this.

If we want to talk about marriage without talking about to religion (which is next to impossible) then I'll tell you that the government provides tax breaks for married couples who are trying or who have conceived. Though some straight people are infertile, all gay people are, so they shouldn't be allowed to get tax breaks, or get married at all.

That is the end of my debate. Thank you
flaskblob

Con

My opponent has not provided absolutely no logical argument and ignored my requests for abbreviation on his assertions. He has made baseless assertions and not backed them up with any logic or factual information. He has provided no evidence for why the taxpayer should subsidize children. He hasn't even attempted to address this request.

The Burden of proof rests upon those who seek to ban words from our society, prohibit parties (that violate no ones rights) and grant unwarranted tax subsidies. My opponent has clearly failed to even attempt to meet that burden of proof.

Please do not vote on this debate based on your own opinion of the issue but on whether Pro met the burden of proof of his R1 assertion.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by flaskblob 4 years ago
flaskblob
tell us how you really feel
Posted by AnonyFeline 4 years ago
AnonyFeline
The semantics between "marriage" and "civil union" is important, but not as important as the benefits of the resultant "pairing". These benefits include emotional companionship, economic discounts, tax breaks, death/inheritance decisions, and finally religious benefits. No one should be denied the right to choose their life companion, husband, or wife. This would segregate anyone considered an "outsider" or not falling within the "norm" from being counted as a true equal citizen. We must all be afforded the ability to lessen our economic and tax burdens, as well as choose whom to leave responsible for us in sickness, and what we leave behind in the event of our passing (remains and property). The society would not be equal if it would allow any particular or group any more or less of these (civil) benefits. The only caveats are the those associated with religion. In the United States, "The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another." --Justice Hugo Black (1947) Using this concept as a model for the aforementioned "society", and using "paring" to replace "marriage" and/or "civil union", it is clear that all individuals within the society must have access to all the above benefits, but the society cannot REQUIRE any church or religion to accept all of these individuals into their fold. If one were to establish the (hypothetical) First Church of Same Sex, that required all "paired" members to be of the same gender, then that church/religion must have the same status within the state as any other. The important thing is that any "pairing" or "coupling" must be available to all citizens of a truly equal society.
Posted by AnonyFeline 4 years ago
AnonyFeline
The definition of "marriage" is the keystone to this argument. Marriage is the the religious and/or civil union between two individuals, and should be a civil right extended to all human beings. Period. People have a number of channels in which to create a civil union of marriage (justice of the peace, ships' captains, etc.) but limited means of establishing religious unions of marriage (Christian Church, LDS Church, Catholic Church, etc). In the U.S., the first amendment mandates the separation of Church and State, which limits the overlap of the term marriage between them. Here is where semantics become paramount. Is it a marriage? a civil union? or both? If we define civil unions to be valid within the scope of the State, then we must not infringe that ability to any individual. None. We are all a part of the Society and hence each have an equal voice within that society that should neither be amplified nor muted based on our choice of partnerships and/or companionships. Civil unions are not official within any religious entity unless that entity deems it to be valid, nor is the State permitted to control the entity's acceptance or denial of any union (see first amendment). Marriage then becomes a question of a label: 1) Is marriage a church union that is also becomes a civil union? or 2) is marriage a civil union that can be validated within a particular religious institution? or 3) is marriage only a civil union without the interference of any religious entity (which is also protected by the first amendment)? So the choice becomes how we define the institution of marriage. Civil unions are open to all, just as any civil right and a church need not accept all civil unions, which is their institutional (civil) right. That being said, people should have the freedom to choose which institutions under which they wish to validate their unions. (QED?)
Posted by AnonyFeline 4 years ago
AnonyFeline
This argument and debate is null and void because it is based on a faulty and inaccurate premise. Marriage is not strictly religious. If it were, then only an ordained Jewish Rabbi, Muslim Imam, Christian Priest, or any other such religious minister would be the only officials permitted to lawfully marry individuals. This is simply not the case. Judges and ship's captains are not (necessarily) religious figures, but still have the ability and power to lawfully wed a couple in to a civil union or marriage.
Posted by adontimasu 4 years ago
adontimasu
Nice RFD, wiploc. :P
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by drhead 4 years ago
drhead
f3ffyflaskblobTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: He defended his use of logical fallacies. I'm sorry, but that's where I draw the line.
Vote Placed by adontimasu 4 years ago
adontimasu
f3ffyflaskblobTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: "Of course I'm using those fallacies; they're the only logical ones." I'll consider this a concession. A fallacy, by its very definition, is illogical. To claim that fallacies are the only logical criticisms available is to say that no logical criticism exists. As such, this is a concession. Good debate.
Vote Placed by Skeptikitten 4 years ago
Skeptikitten
f3ffyflaskblobTied
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 Checkmark-1 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: Pro not only failed to meet his Burden of Proof, but also used nothing but logical fallacies in his arguments and refused to refute the problems Con brought up with his arguments.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
f3ffyflaskblobTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.