Return to CreateDebate.comjaded • Join this debate community

Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day


Debate Info

23
13
Yeah, create a new one Wait..., what? No! Spend $2M
Debate Score:36
Arguments:28
Total Votes:40
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yeah, create a new one (16)
 
 Wait..., what? No! Spend $2M (12)

Debate Creator

joecavalry(39806) pic



Should religious groups create, define and patent a new word to replace "marriage?"

 

Should religious groups stop using the word "marriage" and create, define and patent a new word?

The government is not going to stop using the word "marriage."  They have appropriated it.  If religious groups create, define and patent a new word, then

they can define it any way they want and no one else can use it and/or re-define it.

The alternative is to spend Millions in order to reclaim the word "marriage."

Yeah, create a new one

Side Score: 23
VS.

Wait..., what? No! Spend $2M

Side Score: 13
2 points

I think all we would have to do is add a religious denomination modifier. For example, Methodist marriage. Or perhaps even broader, such as Christian marriage. I believe individual denominations have the right to refuse to marry homosexuals, but for them to want an oppressive government who tells us want we can and can't do is not only silly, it is the polar opposite of Jesus's teachings. Jesus taught people to not put others down even if they are different (too bad Jehovah is not the same). Also, according to the monotheisms, Jehovah created free will to give humans a choice to "commit sin" or "ask for forgiveness and be pure in the eyes of the Lord. So trying to restrict that free will is going against Jehovah's will. It's almost like trying to pass a bill that would require everyone alive to be armless to reduce murders.

Side: Yeah, create a new one

It doesn't have to be an oppressive government. The government has the same option proposed above. The government could stop using the word "marriage," since it has traditionally been a religious term anyway, and start using some other word(s) like "civil union" for everyone (straight and gays). This solution would have put an end to the argument because the government cannot order religious groups to marry anyone they do not want to marry and gays would have gotten the same benefits as heterosexual couples. But the government decided to chose an option that divides people.

Side: Yeah, create a new one
Noxstant(176) Disputed
1 point

Well, when the government tries to limit freedoms such as marriage, I believe it to be oppressive by definition. That may not fulfill the stereotyped actions of an oppressive government found in history and media (ones that are overthrown), but it is still oppressive in nature.

Marriage isn't exactly a religious term. Many cultures have a marriage system and those cultures are very diverse when it comes to religion.

They could replace the word, but I think the hypocrisy of religious citizens in the matter is the real problem. But that is a problem that must be eliminated with careful diplomatic intervention in a way that will show them that Christianity is designed in such a way to "give people a choice between right and wrong."

Side: Wait..., what? No! Spend $2M
1 point

But I definitely can see your point. If religious citizens are hypocritical about marriage, then make a new thing qualitatively identical to it, yet with a different name.

Side: Yeah, create a new one

Yeah, that way people who are polygamous will be allowed to get married. I mean, if the "defenders" of the word "marriage" abandon the word "marriage" for a new one, who is going to oppose polygamy? The gay community won't be able to oppose polygamy because the arguments used by polygamists will probably be similar to the arguments used by the gay community.

Yeah, polygamy is currently illegal, but the law can be changed. I mean, why should the government dictate who can and cannot get married? Polygamists need marriage equality ;)

Side: Yeah, create a new one
churchmouse(328) Disputed
1 point

The law will be changed to include just about any kind of union you can think of. But after gay marriage is group marriage.

Side: Wait..., what? No! Spend $2M
casper3912(1581) Disputed
1 point

So?

Why should legal unions be intertwined with the type of peoples' sexual relationships?

Side: Yeah, create a new one

You hit the nail on the head with this post. The ACLU is working on both. Polygamy sooner or later will be legal. Won't that be good for children in families that split up and they have six mommies. I just can imagine the legal system dealing with this.

If you open the floodgates to gay marrying then....how can you say no to anyone else, any group that wants to do the same thing and uses the same arguments?

Side: Yeah, create a new one
Epifanio Disputed
1 point

i am sorry my good sir but you are foolhardy to believe polygamist need or want for that matter a new name for marriage. you are fool for not doing your homework and i will point this out polygamist are mostly a Christian commune that believe holy men should have multiple wives which is totally absurd i must point out. and i think you missed your target cause this debate is should there be a new name for marriage and all i find in your argument is about polygamy nothing about the debate

Side: Wait..., what? No! Spend $2M

How is it possible that I missed my target in this debate? I created the debate, I decide what it's about ;)

Side: Wait..., what? No! Spend $2M
2 points

To begin with, I do not think that religious groups would want to change their own traditions of the word marriage for others who they may feel have mistreated the word.

Next I would like to ask why they would spend two million pounds on a word when people in other countries can 'only see God in the form of food they are so hungry'. Two million pounds would buy a lot of food.

Finally I would like to ask another rhetorical question, why on Earth would they want to replace a word that has united people together for more millenia than I know of?

This brings me to a conclusion that any religious group is unlikely to want to change a 'holy' word.

Side: No

Why don't those that don't believe in it or don't fit the criteria think one up since marriage in America has ALWAYS BEEN BETWEEN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMAN.

Let them come up with something that describes their union.

Money.........to defend it....is worth every cent.

Side: Wait..., what? No! Spend $2M
casper3912(1581) Disputed
1 point

Can you explain why it is worth every cent?

Side: Yeah, create a new one
churchmouse(328) Disputed
1 point

Because I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. It has always been that way in America. Why? If we have always been a secular nation you would think that marriage would have included gays and groups. But the fact is it was not defined to include them. So why does it need to be changed after hundreds of years of it being the way it is?

If gays want to marry....groups want to marry...then call it something else.

Side: Wait..., what? No! Spend $2M

I really don't care which sides creates, defines and pattens the new word. All I want is a new word to be created so that we don't have to debate this topic ever again ;)

Side: Wait..., what? No! Spend $2M

Religious groups will only bicker about this union, call it what you will. It's the act they despise not the name.

Side: Wait..., what? No! Spend $2M
1 point

I highly doubt the conservative faction would do this - it would feel to them like they're backing down. The fact is that they don't want to just define what they personally consider to be marriage. If that was their goal, there'd be no need for them to lobby for official regulation over marriage. They want everyone to recognise that their definition of marriage is the only correct one. To allow the government to define marriage how it likes, and allow the rest of the world to use that definition, while they pick a different word and use it only amongst themselves, would basically be admitting defeat.

Side: Wait..., what? No! Spend $2M