Debate Rounds (5)
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
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?
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.
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 forfeited this round.
TheQueerAct forfeited this round.
Xanxus forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.