The institution of marriage has changed since its birth -> Homosexual marriage is acceptable today.
Debate Rounds (4)
I have entertained myself by reading some of Bettabreeder's debates on homosexuality. His arguments were in my opinion lurid but his oppponent's weren't exactly strong and detailed. So I decided to challenge him to this debate.
1. For once, Bettabreeder should use proper spelling and grammar.
2. All arguments are acceptable, no matter how weak; use what you think is strong.
3. Round one for acceptance only.
4. List your sources either next to the point/evidence in your argument or at the bottom of your round.
First, I would like to explain what we are arguing. I have to argue that Marriage isn't the same as it was when it started, that these changes were empathetically good, and that this means that the definition of marriage is fluid and can change without moral or social difficulty. Con can either argue that the insitution has been the same since its birth or that even if it has changed, that doesn't mean we should allow homosexual to do it.
1. what was marriage? Marriage was a social or ritual construct for the ensurance of survival of the human race via procreation. In cultures even today, you have to be married to unlock the freedom to have sex with that partner. Yet Anglo-saxon and british tribal uses of marriage were to obtain strategic alliances. It was used to either stenghten bonds between families or to establish diplomatic or trade ties usually without the consent of the children of the families being married off. This changed when there was a differentiation of wealth which meant families wanted to marry off their children to those of higher wealth.
2. What did it change to? In the 12th century, catholic theologians claimed that marriage was a sacrament under God and in 1563, marriage was deemed one of the 7 sacraments. On the protestant side of things, Thomas Cranmer wrote the book of common prayer which laid out wedding vows, a practice still carried out today. Before the 19th century, divorce rates were low and before the 17th century it was outright illegal. Yet with King Henry VIII, and the protestant revolution, things changed and divorce was made legal with the establishment of the Anglican church. So marriage has changed from a socio-political agreement to a religious sacrament.
3. Polygamy to monogamy. Before modern day, polygamy was comonly preffered. If the bible must be used to prove anything, it proves the social and ritual constructs of the ancient Jews. Jacob son of Isaac had two wives, Leah and Rachel while King Solomon had 1000 wives. It was not until between the 16th and 19th centuries that monogamy was ingrained as the common practice and today it is illegal.
4. Misogyny to...not misogyny depending on where and who you look at. Women in marriages were treated as property and were not allowed to inherit property because they were property. If we use the bible again, commandment number 10 is "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbours ox, thy neighbours donkey or thy neighbours wife," as you can see the commandment potrays the woman on the same level as the ox and the donkey. Today, western culture generally sees the two genders as equals and in marriages the roles of the wife and husband are not exclusive to themselves unlike victorian times when the wife, if poor did the cooking and cleaning, if rich did sweet FA. Marriage is a mutual agreement of love which leads me to my next point.
5. It's all about love! In the victorian era, love became the foundation of the institution of marriage, no longer proceation, sacrament, or socio-political ties. This growing importance of love, especially among the middle-class, made it so that thinking of marriage as "a family-arranged event for exchanging a daughter into a family for gain," was distateful. The bond between Queen Victoria and prince Albert became an icon for love being this foundation. Fun Fact: Victoria wore black from the time of Prince Alberts death to the day of hers, symbolising the fact that she never got over it.
6. State-run marriages In 1836, the marriage act meant that non-religious marriages could be held. These 'Civil ceremonies' were in the 300,000s and were more popular than any other form of marriage. Today, in western cultures, marriages come with marriage cirtificates which symbolises the state recognition of marriage. The point is that Marriage is no longer that religiously based.
Marriage has changed from a socio-political agreement, preferrably polygamous without the right of divorce originally for the purpose of procreation to the monogymous state recognised egalitarian consenting agreement and bond of love. The question is now, why can't Homosexuals get married?
I await your arguments.
Ok. I will give up this round while you make your arguments this round. Then we can continue as normal.
bettabreeder forfeited this round.
You have this last round to post your argument. Please.
bettabreeder forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||6||0|
Reasons for voting decision: ff
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.