There are many views which one is the better view.

Gay marrige, seems strange to us but to the gays its normal. why shouldn't it be its a life dicission just like eating apound of choclate each say or having moderations of fruit and vegitables. we try to force being stright on americans and say its a sin but i dissagree. People say it is a sickness and just because the bible says that its a sin and its wrong that it atomatically is. Voice your opinion and help me undersatn why they dont get the same rights as everyone else didn't we do this with other races thus racist! Its the same descrimination and its wrong. this could lead to somthing bigger like onother holocaust ( i doubt it but could be true) i just find it appoling!!

This slogan basically advocates that since we have advanced enough to be able to live on other foods apart from meat,

then it is our moral obligation to stop killing animals for food.

Do you agree with this idea?

Is it our moral obligation to embrace veganism / vegetarianism?

In a nut shell:

Nancy Pelosi agreed to add a provision (in the public option health care bill) that would prohibit federal funds from being used for the purchase of plans that cover abortion in a new health care exchange.  Leaving out the amendment would force taxpayers (who are morally against abortions) to subsidize abortion.

Pelosi’s decision to give the anti-abortion lawmakers what they wanted in exchange for their accession to passing the bill.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29412.html

So..., the question is, should people who are morally against abortions be forced to pay for them?

http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/Joe_s_public_option_health_care_viable_proposal

Consider this editorial, written by the editorial board of The Denver Post:

"President Barack Obama has requested more than $14 billion to fund the drug war at the federal level in 2009. State and local enforcement costs drive that figure far higher.

Year after year, a few hundred thousand people end up in court and prison as a result of drug crimes. Our overcrowded prisons are just one reason to take another look at some of our drug laws.

Granted, there are still many dangerous drugs out there. Highly addictive drugs like methamphetamine or crack cocaine swept through our nation's cities and suburbs and rural communities like epidemics.

But legions of studies have shown that marijuana isn't addictive.

And as recent U.S. presidents have shown, use of the drug, even when inhaled, doesn't in and of itself ruin a person's chance at achieving full and productive lives. Yes, pot users face risks as potentially as devastating as other drugs. So do drinkers of wine and beer."

Alright, so here is the issue at hand:

Some people say that children need a mother and a father to raise us, to give us both viewpoints of gender: masculinity, femininity and all the issues those entail. However, there are others who say that gender does not matter when it comes to child rearing; two women (or two men)  can do just as well as a man and a woman.

What is your take on this issue?

This is difficult to create in a 2 sided debate (and to make this post neutral), but first I'll try and explain the question.

Let's look at this from the point of view that you are about to start a religion. You do not believe in it, nor do you believe in God but you see the world around you in despair and want to make some rules. However you feel people will not take these rules seriously and need a way to enforce them. This enforcer is God.

Forgetting whether or not you believe in God, what is God's role to humans? After creating us the universe (or not) is the concept or belief in God what is needed to keep people in order? Let's say there was no God. When going against the rules of the religion how would you be punished? Jail? Community work? Parole? Fines? Or a limitless amount of pain for an infinite amount of time? (to burn in hell). Is that a much larger deterrent than something imagineable and altogether not so terrible? For a follower, is God's existance much more influential than the country's police and courts?

So to get to the original point, should the idea of God be promoted whether or not you believe in Him? Even if He IS a lie, would it be better to to have this lie promote morals or if not God, some kind of 'myth'? Whether real or not, is belief in God for the GREATER GOOD?

Two sides are - Yes, belief in the existance of God whether God exists or not has MORE benefits than lack of belief in God.

                       - No, belief in the existance of God whether God exists or not has LESS benefits than lack of belief in God.

P.S. - Don't make this an argument about religions. This is purely about the belief in God and not different religions beliefs and opinions in God. No talk on Christianity, Islam, Hinduism - as that is NOT the question.

Liberals want everyone to have a great life.  For example, if you get sick, someone should pay for your health care.  If you are unemployed, someone should pay you welfare.  The list goes on and on but you get the idea. 

So, for this scheme to work, someone has to pay for these benefits and the only way you can get people to pay for these benefits is if there are a hell of a lot more people with money than people without money or if one person has ALL the money.  But even if you took ALL the money in the world and divided it equally among everybody, eventually you would still end up with a group of poor people and a group of rich people.  So why bother? 

Now, as liberals have been telling us for quite some time now, there are a hell of a lot more poor people than rich people.  So, eventually you would be forced to take at least some of the money from the poor people in order to give it to people wo are even poorer.  Unless, of course, you increase the population in order to have more people that you can tax.  But liberals are for abortion!!!  But even if they were against abortion, the more people there are, the less jobs there are and the lower the wages (supply and demand) and the higher the number of people looking for a handout.

Another way to make it work is to get more people to go to work so that they can get taxed.  But who the hell wants to work when they can just get a handout?

It just doesn't make any sense.  But liberals act like they are the intellectuals and everyone else is a red neck even though it is clear to see that liberals lack common sense.

I've changed 1 word in the debate title (**Evolutionists** to **people**) to hopefully discourage discussions about the meaning of words and help people focus on the topic. 

Basically extinction is as natural to existence as death is to life.  That being the case, shouldn't we just let endangered species die out instead of trying to save them?  I mean there's a good reason why they're endangered right?