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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
platoandaristotle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/1/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,212 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 11 through 20 records.
Posted by stemaclean 3 years 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.
Posted by stemaclean 3 years 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.
Posted by MuhammadAbrar 3 years ago
MuhammadAbrar
I accidentally said Con, I meant to be for my argument, not against it.
Posted by MuhammadAbrar 3 years ago
MuhammadAbrar
Ok Levi, you seem to be person who is taking an argument out of context, and using ones beliefs (Well outside of our debate topic here) as a weapon to demonize them. But I will respond to your horrible comment by doing the same with you. After seeing your stance on the Quran, you clearly no nothing of its scientific nature, and how is described motions of nature in simple comprehensible language - 1400 year before any of these statement have been proven to be correct. The Quran has, scientifically and statically, 100 percent accurate description when talking about things or motions of nature which were once unreachable or unthinkable of knowing at the time it was revealed and also those when descriing potential prophecies to happen in the future. The Quran is also proven a book which no man can created, not by a Muslim, but a world renown literarian, Professor Harrisson Gibbs. In his researched he took one verse of the Quran and checked if really a man couldve written it. He did this through looking through best works of literature and poetry and saw how many literary devices a single verse had - which went to a maximum of 6-10. But when he checked just one verse of the Quran, he found an astounding 40 rhetorical devices in just a single verse (Plus had a ring structure system...which no man can easily create) - to which he concluded that the Quran is no "Hipsy Gipsy Magic Book", but rather a book to take seriously and a book that no man can EVER CREATE!!!! So please dont ever go around making ignorant false claims about the Quran anywhere else again (For your own safety that is - not everybody is going to approach you rationally) - hope this was educational and made you a bit wiser than your were yesterday. Here is A resource which you can look up and see how my point holds true.
Posted by Masterful 3 years ago
Masterful
well it's your fault if you click on a link that's clearly provided to support lesbian porn
Posted by Masterful 3 years ago
Masterful
aww man they removed my argument wtf
Posted by Mharman 3 years ago
Mharman
Why tf would you provide a link to Redtube?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!
Posted by Masterful 3 years ago
Masterful
Let's look past the fact Muhammad and I have taken the wrong stance. It's clear what we're arguing for.
Posted by levi_smiles 3 years ago
levi_smiles
In my religion there is no concept "my magic book defines you." In my religion, the boys who sit around worrying about what nouns the lesbians are using for each other never learn contentment.
Posted by Knaveslayer99 3 years ago
Knaveslayer99
Just checking but your Con so that means you are against what this debate is about?
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by BryanMullinsNOCHRISTMAS2 2 years 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 3 years 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.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.