CreateDebate


Debate Info

3
10
True Wait..., what? No!
Debate Score:13
Arguments:10
Total Votes:14
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 True (2)
 
 Wait..., what? No! (8)

Debate Creator

joecavalry(40163) pic



We should answer the following question before tackling the gay marriage question.

 

What is the purpose of marriage?

Is it to proclaim to everyone at your wedding that you love the person you are marrying? If so, why does the government need to sanction your proclamation? Does the "marriage license" make your proclamation more valid?

Is it to proclaim to everyone at your wedding that you promise to spend the rest of your life with your spouse? What if you get a divorce? Does that mean that your proclamation was a momentary lapse of reason (that you really didn't meant it, your word means nothing, you no longer love that person and that you are now breaking your promise)?

Is it for the benefits the government gives married couples? Is it for the wedding gifts? Is it because a wedding is one hell of a party? Is it for the honey moon? Is it because it will improve your economic situation and/or your social standing? Is it because you expect to be taken care of for the rest of your life and if you get a divorce you get half?

Is it to proclaim to everyone at your wedding that you plan to raise children with the person you are marrying and that you have exclusive rights to their sperm/eggs and sexual reproductive organs?

Lots of questions. No easy answers. Yet people are out there getting married left and right and I would be surprised if anyone of them could give you a straight forward reason as to why they were getting married because it's usually a mix of the above.

True

Side Score: 3
VS.

Wait..., what? No!

Side Score: 10

Men are simple. Men want exclusive rights to a woman's reproductive system for sexual pleasure and in order to have some degree or reassurance that the children she bears are truly his and his only.

Women are a bit more complicated. Women want to be able to do whatever they want without any negative consequences so they look for a man who can provide as much of that as possible. A man who is rich enough so that she does not have to work and can stay at home with the kids or rich enough to help her pay for a nanny to take care of the kids while she goes off to work. Some want a man who is rich enough so that she does not have to work and who can also afford a nanny to take care of the kids while she goes off to party with her friends ;)

Women want security (at least one house, one car, and one credit card), they want to be taken care of. A man who is strong enough to take care of a burglar should one break into the house, or..., at the very least..., is strong enough to kill a spider at a moment's notice. He should also be strong enough to take out the garbage every night ;)

Women also want to be able to keep a man's penis with them so that they can keep an eye its whereabouts. But since that is not possible, some women settle for emasculation ;)

Side: True
1 point

I reckon, that humanity had already answered this question hundreds of years ago. Then someone asks why we can't divorce, why women cannot marry women, why a man cannot marry a 2 year old girl (etc).

And then humanity started fussing around trying to answer these questions and just forgot about the original answer.

Side: True

Why clarify the significance of marriage? People have been thinking with their naughty bits since the beginning of time. Most people get married in order to get exclusive rights to their spouse's naughty bits for sexual pleasure..., why change now ;)

Side: Wait..., What? No!

Most people get married in order to get exclusive rights to their spouse's naughty bits for sexual pleasure...

... and to get exclusive access to their spouse's "green bits" for big and naughty spendings. Don't forget that

Side: Wait..., what? No!

well first of all what did all that have to do with gay marriage? it seemed completely irreleavent, is every gay person out there who wants to marry marrying for the wrong reason and you don't believe homosexuals can truly love? or are you not putting homosexuals on the same playing field as heterosexuals, and don't have the mental capability to realize that can happen in a heterosexual relationship to? secondly wether or not this happens with either gay or straight couples, why is it a problem? its thier choice if someone got married for any of those reasons how would it harm you? the only thing that affects you is the government gifts for it, but a boy and a girl could marry just to get benefits from the government for it so what does any of this have to do with homosexual relationships, I don't understand... as far as why we need the government to do proclaim it for us, I really don't care about marriage im going to do it one day because ill most likely marry someone who is into that tradition, but marriage, the government putting you down on record doesn't magically change how you feel about each other after or anything.

Side: Wait..., What? No!

OK, so what I think you are saying is that people should be allowed to get married for whatever reason. Either that, or you're saying that only people who are in love should be allowed to marry. Please clarify.

Either way, we both agree that gays should get the same marriage benefits from the government as heterosexual married couples.

I think we also agree that whether or not the state sanctions gay marriage, it will not change how a gay couple feels about each other.

BTW, this debate has nothing to do with gay marriage. This debate is about how heterosexuals have NOT figured out what heterosexual marriage is. If we do not know what heterosexual marriage is, how can we categorize what gay marriage is? In other words, we should define what heterosexual marriage is because if we do not have a working definition for the word, "marriage", then "gay marriage should be legal" makes no sense.

The reason "gay marriage should be legal" makes no sense is because a gay couple can have a ritual wedding/romantic ceremony and they can tell people that they are "married" and they will NOT get thrown in jail or harassed by the police. So in that sense, gay marriage is already legal. Granted, certain religions will NOT perform the ceremony but.... even if the state said that gays are allowed to get married, they cannot force a religion to perform the ceremony.

If "marriage" is about "a couple being in love," then "gay marriage should be legal" makes no sense because, as you pointed out, "the government putting you down on record doesn't magically change how you feel about each other after or anything." In other words, if "marriage" is about "a couple being in love," then gay marriage is already legal.

"Gay marriage should be legal" ONLY makes sense in the context of, "a gay couple should get the same marriage benefits from the government as heterosexual married couples." That's it. So gays should be petitioning the government for those right regardless of what the government decides to call it. In other words, if the government grants gays the same marriage benefits as heterosexual married couples but calls it a "Civil Union" then that should be good enough. If there's an issue with "separate but equal," then the government should stop using the word "marriage" and use the words "Civil Union" for both heterosexuals and homosexuals.

Side: Wait..., What? No!

ok I misunderstood your debate here, I thought you were making an argument against gay marriage saying that if we legalized gay marriage then they could take advantage of it, I see what you are saying is anyone could take advantage of it like as I responded to you with, and that to we havn't figured out what marriage really is to begin with. I apologize for what was actually a strawman argument as I got your intentions wrong. as for what I was saying is, I guess what I was saying about marriage is its normally by most people SUPPOSED to be romantic, and most people do acknowledge it as so, but there are people out there that use it for different reasons, and thats not our problem. we can't somehow come up with a test that will 100% of the time figure out if the couple really loves each other, or to know for a fact they are doing it for genuine reasons rather than hidden motives. if a couple claims to love each other and one or both is lying to steal money from the other or benefits from the government there is no way of knowing for fact, or have the evidence to accuse them of such. in other words it would be a lot better if we can know for a fact that the couple loves each other but we can't. if they are trying to take one anothers money thats not the governments problem (except for the taking advantage of government benefits that the only thing I can see as a problem, but once again how will you be able to test if they are genuine or not?)

Side: Wait..., What? No!