Gay Marriage Should be Allowed

Firstly, I agree that, besides political marriages, ‘patriarchal domination' has been prevalent in marriage since the time man's been born. Neanderthal men are said to knock a woman out and take her if he wanted her. Of course in modern society, that's not the case, but yes, patriarchal domination will always have a presence somewhere. That presence, in today's times though, has faded drastically, at least in well-developed Western countries. Some marriages do not have any form or influence of patriarchal domination in their marriage. Why should these truly devoted, loving, and equal lovers, not have the chance to be wed. That choice should be open to them. But you cannot say that all, or even most marriages are structurally violent, and for such a statement to be accepted, or even considered by readers, reliable statistics and/or studies that prove that would be in order. I believe that most see that marriage, at least in most cases in Western society nowadays, is not as you state it is. When a partner in a marriage is autocratic, yes of course, it is at the very least most likely structurally violent. But those that are not as you state, or use marriage for these or other wrong reasons, should have that offer open to them. And sure, many women and other marginalized groups have accepted marginilization and grown dependent on it. Many, but not all. What of the rest? There are strong women, such as Susan B. Anthony, who played a key role in getting women voting rights in America. One example there, of one who refused to be marginalized, in a time where women basically had to accept it. I say this, because it sounds like you believe women and other marginalized groups are helpless, and this is the answer to help them. Susan B. Anthony didn't have to ban marriage to help get women less marginalized. There are better solutions, and ones that have much better chances of working than banning marriage. Banning marriage wouldn't make them less marginalized, there would be other ways to do that, and they would still be dependent. Nothing would be accomplished, or if something were, the gain would be greatly outnumbered by the bad it would bring about. As for your point of marriage being 'built upon the subjugation of women', yeah, that makes sense to me, I agree. But please realize, that everything in life evolves and changes over time, and may completely change meaning. I will give you example as to what I mean, and then go back to how marriage has changed since it's ill-founded institution. The pentagram, a symbol of evil today, in Medieval times was the equivalent of the cross in today's times. The pentagram's five points represented the five wounds of Christ on the cross. It is completely different, and viewed completely differently than it was upon its creation. It has no good connection to Christ in today's times. Marriage, while it has not had such a shift, is not the same either as when it was created. Nothing stays the same forever. Everything changes, however slight or drastic, as time and life pass us by. So sure, marriage was used that way in the beginning, and still today, but it has evolved much more than that since then. It should not be abolished. As for why homosexuals would accept Christianity, when it forbids sexuality, I won't go into that. It is irrelevent to this debate. I will say though, that it wouldn't be because they accept structural violence. If you would like to debate this topic afterward, I will accept the challenge. As for homosexuals feeling 'pressured' to engage in the act of marriage because it's so 'naturalized', I don't understand how you could come to this conclusion. People love, and people want to express that love, and with marriage, that love is acknowledged, and they get the rights that they should rightfully have. Being against not being allowed to be wed, has nothing at all to do with being marginalized, or being pressured. I respect your opinions, but I don't understand this one at all. Homosexuals love as well, and that love should not be denied to them. I wish that someday people will see this and at least be tolerant. You haven't expressed any intolerance in this debate about homosexuals though, so that isn't the issue. You do have a few good points though. Now the last quote you said, I agree with completely. 'Why the hell does the government care who we live with? '. People have their set beliefs, and the politicians that vote on these matters are obviously still predominantly against gay marriage. It's wrong, and they shouldn't even have the power to infringe on anyone's personal life in so drastic a way, but regardless they do. I agree with you completely on this, but the fact is, most people, especially politicians, believe people should life by their views. If they have the power to make people follow their rules, they will. But this last point is also irrelevent to the debate. It provides no additional information as to why marriage should be abolished. A good point, but nonetheless, still irrelevent to this debate. Banning marriage would not solve any problems in the end, and would only create a number of them. I hope to hear what my opponent has to say in response to me. Thanks again to Dmetal for accepting my challenge. Sources . http://www.angelfire.com...