CreateDebate


Debate Info

3
6
Yes No
Debate Score:9
Arguments:8
Total Votes:10
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (2)
 
 No (5)

Debate Creator

HoldTheMayo(5907) pic



Should opposite-sex marriage be legal?

Yes

Side Score: 3
VS.

No

Side Score: 6
2 points

Why should they not be? If someone wants to get married, just let them. If it makes some people feel better about their relationship, so be it. Anyway, what does the government really have to do with marriage?

Side: Yes

Can't see any reason why it shouldn't. If I remember correctly, the first marriage recorded is in the bible, in the story about that giant tower in Babel. I have not actually read this myself, but I heard about this a long time ago in school.

Anyway, if what I remember is true, then marriage has existed for over 5000 years, so why suddenly make it illegal?

Side: Yes

My god, "Juses", clearly states in the holy Bebli, that heterosexual marriage and heterosexuality in general is a very bad sin. Heterosexuals are vessels of wrath sent by the almighty Juses to test our strength. We must remain remain righteous and on the true path unless we want to be sent to hel when we die.

Also, heterosexuality causes diseases and is unnatural. Not to mention how it is also disgusting in general. There is also proof that a heterosexual couple cannot raise children properly (unlike homosexual couples).

We must find the "straight" gene and eliminate it.

Side: No

Oh and anyone who doesn't believe in my omnipotent omniscient omnibenevolent Juses, just hasn't found Juses yet or they have and hate Juses.

Side: No
thousandin1(1932) Clarified
1 point

It's pronounced Hoose-Ace, grongi!

Side: Yes

No, it should not.

Marriage, in general, should not be enforced or even recognized by any legal entity. Marriage is ultimately only the business of the married individuals (or those planning to get married), and in the case of religious marriages, the god or gods in question. Governments have no business dictating who can and cannot get married, and furthermore should not be assigning legal benefits and/or penalties selectively to those who enter an 'approved' marriage.

If some form of legally binding partnership is needed for certain instances- such as being allowed to enter the hospital room of a patient who is unable to communicate who s/he wants to allow visitation- then such partnership needs to take another form, and be entirely separate from marriage. The US government cannot (and all governments should not) legally deny recognition to a couple based on sexual orientation, and yet there is significant pressure to meet the wishes of society. 'Marriage' is simply too loaded and divisive a term for the government to work with, and should be dropped from their usage.

I propose the following commands be run against all government documents:

s/spouse/partner

s/husband/partner

s/wife/partner

s/marriage/partnership

s/married/partnered

s/marry/"partner with"

Side: No
1 point

I wasted my last upvote within this time frame on the satire above your comment. i think this is the best argument in the whole "marriage dependent on sex" debate genre.

Side: No
1 point

Legalizing opposite-sex marriage destroys the sanctity of marriage. And we just can't do that. Because my beliefs say so. And I'm right.

Side: No