The Instigator
TheQueerAct
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Xanxus
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Sexist

Do you like this debate?NoYes-3
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/25/2014 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 704 times Debate No: 53327
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (0)

 

TheQueerAct

Con

One of your posts breatly urked my nerves in a debate I saw and I would like to conform you'r thoughts about it . Xanxus

Comment: I find gay marriage pointless. The whole idea of marriage is based around the idea that women were the property of their fathers and during the marriage ceremony it was to show the property switching hands. The wife was now the property of the husband. Since men are free. I see no need for men to have to marry.

So, you are saying women are property of their fathers and husbands? I find your view of the female gender
greatly disturbing and quite rude. Your sexist comment is degrading towards females, in the sense that you
are labeling them as property to "own." Men are "free?" So, women shouldn't have rights and should just be
objects for men to "own?" Also, you stated that same-sex marriage is somehow "pointless" because the
"property" is not transferred from one man to another (?). I think women and men are equal, and I don"t see
women as property to own ~H
Xanxus

Pro

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I think there's been a HUGE misunderstanding. I'm really glad you brought that up. Let's take this time to discuss this.

Let me first off be clear in saying in these that I don't believe in women as being property or anything less than humans. I was basing the whole concept of marriage on historical/ original concept of marriage.

Originally women were "legally" property of their fathers (Biological and/or legal) or husband. This was one of the reasons why fornication was so frowned upon in ancient times. Besides all the negative sexual aspects of it, it was also a form of theft to the father/husband of the girl. Hence, a marriage ceremony would be brought forth were the father would walk the bride to the groom and the bride would switch hands. Which in a legal sense symbolized the transfer of property of bride to the groom. Then they go on the be husband and wife. Of course you will find minor differences from place to place but in terms of any patriarchal society this was the "bare bones" of it.

Gay men specifically were slightly different. A popular example in which I covered countless times in ancient history classes are roman soldiers or gladiators. They never married or seeked marriage. They just entered into a relationship. Part of what made the Roman armies so strong was the fact that many soldiers did have exclusive sometimes open relationships with one another. Making them fight that much harder to keep one another safe. This helped to raise morale and espirt d'corpes (I hope I spelled that right). This was quite popular with both the Athenians and the Spartans. The reason I used the Romans was because they were well-known among other things for their extremely open sexuality. Did everyone do this. Well I guess not (wasn't there can't say) but we cannot deny the existence of these type relationships. It is of course true and which allows me to go on to say if men can do it why can't women do the same.
If "property" engaged with "property" then what does it matter in the affairs of men unless it be for political reasons like arranged marriages for alliances and what not. Many women earned their freedom or took it by disowning their fathers sometimes even committing patricide because they would try to kill them (Again this depends on the culture this is popular in the Ancient Arab world)

That was how the world WAS until around the 1950s believe it or not. Then woman started to become people legally and many other rights among with that.

Now wait?! Hold on?! What if a woman's father had died and she had not married. Then her "ownership" at least under the law of some Arab countries would be transferred to her eldest brother, uncle or male cousin believe or not. Even if they were younger of them. It can all get extremely confusing and complicated. Every country/society had their own patriarchal bylaws about the whole thing. Now all because they were "property" doesn't mean that they were trash or treated like objects. It just meant politically speaking they did not have a much power as their male counter-parts.

Not all societies were like this. Many of them exalted women. For example, Vikings, many women were queens, leaders or shield maidens (female warriors). The Vikings venerated the Valkyries who were female divine warriors under the goddess Freya who chose who died or lived in battle.

Going back to what I was saying is. Marriage is concept for heterosexual people to settle their issue of property between the Father and a third party. Nothing more. nothing less. Most times people didn't even marry for love but for status. Gays need not even worry about that issue. They just date and do their thing. Now in the modern era, marriage is much less of a business transaction and more about mutual feelings. Shoot, you could even get married in a drive thru in Las Vegas if you wanted. I'm just saying that gay people don't need to get married. They really just don't. It doesn't really make you equal. It's more of a burden on you guys I feel. You can still have a ceremony without getting married.

Women ARE PEOPLE. They always were even before the law said so.

If you have any questions or comments type away?
Debate Round No. 1
TheQueerAct

Con

Tty for clearing up the sexist misunderstanding but marriage is also a tax benefit. It also gives the couple a sense of commitment when they are married. Idk why you oppose that and suggest same sex couples should just date and do their thing. Same sex couples should have the right to get marriage just like heterosexual couples do . I just find it intriguing how you would say Marriage should stay as a traditional thing rather then "mixing it up".
Xanxus

Pro

To be straight up and down to earth with you. I don't really care. I know that may sound bad or selfish and I'm sorry if I offend you but I feel it's best for me to stay out of it. If you want to get married there's plenty of places to go I'm pretty sure. It's just me being a heterosexual male it honestly has absolutely nothing to do with me.

I think human society tries to keep sexual relationships as conservative as possible and homosexuality kinda breaks that mold a little bit is all. Gays are also hated (not by me but some) for ending bloodlines over the fact that gay people don't produce. In some societies or social circles the family line is a pretty big deal. Another major function of marriage was to join families and extend dual-bloodlines through children. Yeah we can all adopt but the bloodline still doesn't really extend. I dunno just think out loud here.

I know that if I had a gay son and I knew that it wasn't a phase but the real thing. I would train him up to be one of the manliest gay guy he could to be (meaning I would have him weight lift, practice martial arts and get stronger). So that we would be able to maintain his respectability in the real world where the majority of people are heterosexual and have animosity against gay people (not always personal). Honestly if any of my children were gay I just hope that they'll play their genders at least. Honestly that's all I ask for. Not that I would stop loving them but it would save me a lot of ridicule. That's another thing a lot of people don't respect gay people. I mean have gay friends but there were always my friends long before I found out they were gay,

And personally, I don't have a problem with gay males as long as they're smaller than me. That's the one phobia I have of homosexuals I have. Females are fine because they don't rape you and sometimes they convert. However huge gay guys erk me. That's part of why I always hit the gym so I could be more tolerant y'know. There always the fear of anal rape. I know that sounds absurd but for a lot of straight guys they're really sensitive about their a-hole. The huge gay guys could be nicest guy on Earth but it's just this subconscious feeling that makes you gravitate away. Anal rape would turn a sane conservative man to insane raging psychopath.

I'm being completely honest right now.
Debate Round No. 2
TheQueerAct

Con

~H , I apologize for not recognizing what you said in your second debate , I just realized you where talking about the prospects of marriage XD. Also as a homosexual male I don't think you should be scared homosexuals because its a different form of rape . Rape is Rape no matter who does it.
I think your argument was entertaining and I apologize for going ape and misinterpreting your comment XD. Ps Don't favor lesbian women over gay men!
I would End this debate although i do not know how....
Xanxus

Pro

Xanxus forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
TheQueerAct

Con

TheQueerAct forfeited this round.
Xanxus

Pro

Xanxus forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
TheQueerAct

Con

this is over i guess o-o
Xanxus

Pro

Yep this is done
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Xanxus 3 years ago
Xanxus
Sorry for the misunderstanding. It's my fault I really should have explained it more. Next time just message me lol.
Posted by TheQueerAct 3 years ago
TheQueerAct
I though at first it was a sexist comment because to me it seemed like one ,~H
Posted by ArcTImes 3 years ago
ArcTImes
Con, you didn't understand Pros's comment. What he said is that marriage is meaningless because it is based on shitty laws from the past.

It doesn't matter if it's true or not, that is not a sexist comment.
No votes have been placed for this debate.