The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free! Why does it matter what marriage is called?in United States

Nightwing

It seems to me that those who cannot define marriage are unable to recognize marriage.

Vaulk

CYDdharta said:

Trash_Goddess said:

CYDdharta said:

Here's a perfect illustration of the problem with altering well-established definitions to suit political purposes;

The difference here is that this man wants to marry an inanimate object. You are comparing biotic and abiotic, reciprocative love to that of a non-living object. There are limits as to how you alter the definitions of many things, and you are acting like because there are homosexuals who want to marry, that the definition will for some reason be allowed into changing people to marry objects that they like or have addictions with BECAUSE of this alteration of the word marriage referring to gays and lesbians, too.

You're letting your phobias and biases cloud your judgement.  Who says a marriage can't be with an inanimate object?  Who are you to tell someone who or what they can or can't love?  Who are you to stand in the way of someone else's true love???

See how easy this is, the exact same emotional arguments that worked to allow redefining marriage once will work the next time as well, and the next, and the next.  There are no limits; if there were, marriage wouldn't have been redefined in the first place.

I'll raise a glass to this.  There are many arguments as to why Marriage shouldn't include anyone but a Man and Woman...but this argument here is paramount.  The suggestion that Marriage be redefined is tampering with the flood gates.  Allowing a change in something that hasn't been changed before will establish a precedent, in case anyone here's is unfamiliar with legal processes...precedence serves as a very strong argument.  If it's been done before...then it can be done again.  If we all decided that it can be changed once...then we can all decide that it can be changed again. 

Speaker: Do you believe people should have the right to be in love with and Marry whomever they choose?

Advocate: Yes I do.

Speaker: Even between a Man and another Man?

Advocate: Yes, especially.

Speaker: What about a Father and his Son, if they decided they were in Love with each other, should they be able to Marry each other?

Advocate: So long as they're both consenting adults then I don't see why not, who are we to tell them that their love is wrong?

Speaker: Then by that law, the Father being the legal guardian could sign the authorization for his Son to marry prior to the age of 18, as young as 14 as a matter of fact.  So then basically we would be creating a legal loophole for pedophilia.

Advocate: Well...I guess...that sounds pretty bad when you put it like that.

Speaker: You mean when I bring up the real consequences that you didn't consider?

CYDdharta

...and the decline continues...

Woman gets engaged to 90-year-old chandelier