CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
How do you claim to have any morals at all without God? It is the exact opposite. We have not gained higher moral standards; we have tried to remove the absolute moral standards that we do not like or agree with. Relativism is the greatest danger to society. When there is no right or wrong, anyone can do anything and everything.
One can be atheistic (not believing in a god(s)) and still follow a philosophy (like Confucianism) or a religion (like Buddhism). So yes, an atheist can have morals.
The gays have room to complain still. They should be complaining about not being treated equally. They have screwed up by trying to change how marriage is defined.
looks like you got that from Oxford. Interestingly, their site has other uses:
1.1 (In some jurisdictions) a formal union between partners of the same sex.
Or then there is Merriam-webster:
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
not when its a holy union, you should marry to bring the power of god into full swing and this is done through a trinity in life, and gay people can not have this trinity in their life because if they have a kid together it is going to be only one of theirs.
Why the hell would anyone want to be recognized by the government they have fucked up congress so much i cant believe the gay community hasnt just dropped this issue and moved on.
Spend 20k on a wedding and regret it later, or get eloped and save for your future?
Why the hell would anyone want to be recognized by the government they have fucked up congress so much i cant believe the gay community hasnt just dropped this issue and moved on.
I love how you think it is weird for gays to want to be recognized by the government when you fight to be the only one recognized by the government. If you really felt that way you would be fighting for the government to not recognize heterosexual marriage and only recognize gay marriage.
Spend 20k on a wedding and regret it later, or get eloped and save for your future?
Those are not the options being given to gays. What are you asking?
You don't understand the overall debate then. Gays are trying to get the government to recognize gay couples as married and give the same benefits. It isn't really about you personally accepting their marriage.
So sorry but no i never said that in fact im sure i actually said somewhere else they should just remove the legal part
Sometimes our actions speak far louder than our words.
Which is why I'm wondering you object to legalizing the unholy union of same-sex couples in marriage, but not any other couple that would also be considered unholy? As I mentioned a list of them, which you essentially just brushed off.
And in my beliefs not being able to continue your bloodline is not very holy its more self defeating. to me at least.
Is that what you tell heterosexual infertile couples, such as postmenopausal women, couples with fertility issues or simply a heterosexual couple who does not wish to have children?
marriage is about family and keeping those values. I didn't have family growing up much, so for me, this is a very touchy thing.
I kinda forgot about the legal benefits that come from marriage, and it is unfair that gay couples cant get the same benefits as a married couple, marriage is more important than just being able to get compensated if your spouse dies.
marriage is about family and keeping those values.
Which must be why drunks and/or strangers can get married, so long as they're not of the same sex.
I didn't have family growing up much, so for me, this is a very touchy thing.
In a simple discussion, this is very saddening and I wish you the best in finding happiness and closure.
In a debate, this detail is not a relevant factor about the rights of others.
I kinda forgot about the legal benefits that come from marriage, and it is unfair that gay couples cant get the same benefits as a married couple, marriage is more important than just being able to get compensated if your spouse dies.
The drunk goldigger who married a stranger must also be more important than people of the same sex who cannot see each other in the hospital because they're not legally family. Or taking protected leave from work to care for them. Or making medical decisions if they aee unable to. Obviously I'm only highlighting some of the benefits.
It is a spiritual bond
Marriage as a bond and sanction is constantly "violated" by heterosexuals all the time. And we're worried about homosexuality.
I would imagine that marriage will not last more than a month...
Doesn't matter what you imagine, or even how long it does actually last. It doesn't change my argument. Is the sanctity of their marriage more important, still?
two people hammered getting married in vegas is not the same as getting soberly married.
Legally, it is. The marriage is just as equally recognized as the "traditional Christian couple" marrying in a church saying those famous words "I do".
Now, does this article say equality and fairness? No, i do not think so, and this kind of thing PISSES ME OFF.
We can talk about this once you directly answer my points
....
Doesn't matter what you imagine, or even how long it does actually last. It doesn't change my argument. Is the sanctity of their marriage more important, still?
Nope, but recognized by law it is more important.
Legally, it is.
Morally, its not. I hope they have a fun time answering to god!
EDIT Here is the rest of your points, and i am going to address them.
Now, when I finish addressing these things, as agreed by YOUR words, you are to immediately talk to me about the hypocrisy that is in the article i posted to you.
Which must be why drunks and/or strangers can get married, so long as they're not of the same sex.
That, again, is a moral issue they will have to deal with personally themselves.
In a debate, this detail is not a relevant factor about the rights of others.
i was giving you the reason why I look at marriage the way I do.
Obviously I'm only highlighting some of the benefits.
And like i said, i spaced out the legal benefits, sorry, politics and pointless things that dictate the way i am going to live don't really speak to me, so i just say the legal aspects and go get eloped.
Marriage as a bond and sanction is constantly "violated" by heterosexuals all the time. And we're worried about homosexuality.
it is violated by both parties so do not try to put sides on that issue.
NOW. I do not want you to reply to ANY of my points except for the article i have linked to you.
I want you to logically explain to me how it is fair to FORCE a man to GO AGAINST HIS OWN BELIEFS to provide a service they DONT FEEL COMFORTABLE PROVIDING FOR.
You want to talk about "someone having more rights over someone else"
It seems to me that gays already get special treatment. Instead of making this a national issue, they could have just found another baker... but instead, our government stomped on this mans rights so that someones elses rights could be protected.
I want you to logically explain to me how it is fair
I don't believe I even hinted at my opinion of the incident article. Why assume my position on the issue?
to FORCE a man to GO AGAINST HIS OWN BELIEFS to provide a service they DONT FEEL COMFORTABLE PROVIDING FOR.
Literally the exact same thing happened in my home state, the business even went under because of all the flock they got from the public.
You want to talk about "someone having more rights over someone else"
It seems to me that gays already get special treatment. Instead of making this a national issue, they could have just found another baker... but instead, our government stomped on this mans rights so that someones elses rights could be protected.
That makes SO MUCH SENSE
I'm on the fence about this issue. You are right that I do find it stupid and don't like that he turned the couple away, but it is a business right to deny service to anyone. The dilemma I have is, while I believe that, I also believe it hypocritical to allow a business to do that with a same-sex couple, and legally jump on their ass if they were to do that to an interracial couple. Hence my dilemma.Nope, but recognized by law it is more important.
Right. I don't see how this proves your point.
EDIT Here is the rest of your points, and i am going to address them.
Now, when I finish addressing these things, as agreed by YOUR words, you are to immediately talk to me about the hypocrisy that is in the article i posted to you.
Actually I never agreed to immediately talk to you about the article, I did intend for after we get somewhere with this discussion, but I will concede and add it to our debate.
Morally, its not. I hope they have a fun time answering to god!
That, again, is a moral issue they will have to deal with personally themselves.
"Morally" doesn't equate to "legally", as you've already indirectly admitted. And we're arguing the legality of marriage, because that is the one officially recognized anywhere.
Would you be in favor of preventing legal marriages between heterosexuals who do not, cannot or will not have children?
Would you be in favor of preventing legal marriages between goldiggers, trophy spouses, drunk people, strangers, etc?
Would you be in favor of preventing legal marriages between those who are of alternative religions or deities or those who reject religion or deities entirely?
And like i said, i spaced out the legal benefits, sorry, politics and pointless things that dictate the way i am going to live don't really speak to me, so i just say the legal aspects and go get eloped.
I honestly have no idea what point your making here. Why suggest they elope? You're in favor of them eloping but not a wedding?
it is violated by both parties so do not try to put sides on that issue.
Too late, you did that ("put sides") by posting in this debate.
NOW. I do not want you to reply to ANY of my points except for the article i have linked to you.
I can do both. It's why I initially hesitated to add it into our debate, I didn't want you to have to juggle two debates wIth multiple points of argument in one post to the same person.
EDIT Here is the rest of your points, and i am going to address them.
Now, when I finish addressing these things, as agreed by YOUR words, you are to immediately talk to me about the hypocrisy that is in the article i posted to you.
Actually I never agreed to immediately* talk to you about the article, I did intend for after we get somewhere with this discussion, but I will concede and add it to our debate.
Morally, its not. I hope they have a fun time answering to god!
That, again, is a moral issue they will have to deal with personally themselves.
"Morally" doesn't equate to "legally", as you've already indirectly admitted. And we're arguing the legality of marriage, because that is the one officially recognized anywhere.
Would you be in favor of preventing legal marriages between heterosexuals who do not, cannot or will not have children?
Would you be in favor of preventing legal marriages between goldiggers, trophy spouses, drunk people, strangers, etc?
Would you be in favor of preventing legal marriages between those who are of alternative religions or deities or those who reject religion or deities entirely?
And like i said, i spaced out the legal benefits, sorry, politics and pointless things that dictate the way i am going to live don't really speak to me, so i just say the legal aspects and go get eloped.
I honestly have no idea what point your making here. Why suggest they elope? You're in favor of them eloping but not a wedding?
it is violated by both parties so do not try to put sides on that issue.
Too late, you did that ("put sides") by posting in this debate.
NOW. I do not want you to reply to ANY of my points except for the article i have linked to you.
I can do both. Why would we stop the first debate when no one has conceded? It's why I initially hesitated to add it into our debate, I didn't want you to have to juggle two debates wIth multiple points of argument in one post to the same person.
I want you to logically explain to me how it is fair
I don't believe I even hinted at my opinion of the incident article. Why assume my position on the issue?
to FORCE a man to GO AGAINST HIS OWN BELIEFS to provide a service they DONT FEEL COMFORTABLE PROVIDING FOR.
Literally the exact same thing happened in my home state, the business even went under because of all the flock they got from the public.
You want to talk about "someone having more rights over someone else"
It seems to me that gays already get special treatment. Instead of making this a national issue, they could have just found another baker... but instead, our government stomped on this mans rights so that someones elses rights could be protected.
That makes SO MUCH SENSE
I'm on the fence about this issue. You are right that I do find it stupid and don't like that he turned the couple away, but it is a business right to deny service to anyone. The dilemma I have is, while I believe that, I also believe it hypocritical to allow a business to do that with a same-sex couple, and legally jump on their ass if they were to do that to an interracial couple due to their belief system. Hence my dilemma.
EDIT Here is the rest of your points, and i am going to address them.
Now, when I finish addressing these things, as agreed by YOUR words, you are to immediately talk to me about the hypocrisy that is in the article i posted to you.
Actually I never agreed to immediately talk to you about the article, I did intend for after we get somewhere with this discussion, but I will concede and add it to our debate.
Morally, its not. I hope they have a fun time answering to god!
That, again, is a moral issue they will have to deal with personally themselves.
"Morally" doesn't equate to "legally", as you've already indirectly admitted. And we're arguing the legality of marriage, because that is the one officially recognized anywhere.
Would you be in favor of preventing legal marriages between heterosexuals who do not, cannot or will not have children?
Would you be in favor of preventing legal marriages between goldiggers, trophy spouses, drunk people, strangers, etc?
Would you be in favor of preventing legal marriages between those who are of alternative religions or deities or those who reject religion or deities entirely?
And like i said, i spaced out the legal benefits, sorry, politics and pointless things that dictate the way i am going to live don't really speak to me, so i just say the legal aspects and go get eloped.
I honestly have no idea what point your making here. Why suggest they elope? You're in favor of them eloping but not a wedding?
it is violated by both parties so do not try to put sides on that issue.
Too late, you did that ("put sides") by posting in this debate.
NOW. I do not want you to reply to ANY of my points except for the article i have linked to you.
I can do both. Why would we stop the first debate when no one has conceded? It's why I initially hesitated to add it into our debate, I didn't want you to have to juggle two debates wIth multiple points of argument in one post to the same person.
I want you to logically explain to me how it is fair
I don't believe I even hinted at my opinion of the incident article. Why assume my position on the issue?
to FORCE a man to GO AGAINST HIS OWN BELIEFS to provide a service they DONT FEEL COMFORTABLE PROVIDING FOR.
Literally the exact same thing happened in my home state, the business even went under because of all the flock they got from the public.
You want to talk about "someone having more rights over someone else"
It seems to me that gays already get special treatment. Instead of making this a national issue, they could have just found another baker... but instead, our government stomped on this mans rights so that someones elses rights could be protected.
That makes SO MUCH SENSE
I'm on the fence about this issue. You are right that I do find it stupid and don't like that he turned the couple away, but it is a business right to deny service to anyone. The dilemma I have is, while I believe that, I also believe it hypocritical to allow a business to do that with a same-sex couple, and legally jump on their ass if they were to do that to an interracial couple due to their belief system. Hence my dilemma.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahaha Im astounded by your intellectual capacity for logical reasoning. ;)
A nice dinner is about love... a ride around the park in a horse carriage is about love... valentines day is about love. Marriage is about a spiritually binding contract between a man and a woman before God and your community. The community makes the free choice to endorse heterosexual marriage with benefits because it serves the interest of the community and access to those benefits are rightfully regulated by the community. People do not have "rights" to those benefits without the consent of the community to give it to them.
If the community wanted to do something "discriminatory"... like say...... take away education benefits to straight white christian men because they think they are over-represented... IT IS THEIR CHOICE TO DO THAT (and they do). You don't have to plead before every single court in the country to make such a decision...
Why stop at homosexuality? Why not follow Leviticus 11:9-12 which says that eating shellfish is an abomination? Why don't Christians boycott Long John Silvers? Haven't they read the bible? Gays are an abomination! So is people who eat shellfish! Let us follow the entire bible!
Actually... the prohibition against homosexuality is sandwiched between sacrificing of children and zoophilia. Two out of three major laws destroyed... not bad progressives... when are you going to get started on zoophilia?
Jewish dietary customs were essentially discarded by Jesus and many throw off the one verse about cloth with it... Was the prohibition against homosexuality just one verse? Nope... And sexual sin was never given any room for interpretation.
Actually... the prohibition against homosexuality is sandwiched between sacrificing of children and zoophilia. Two out of three major laws destroyed... not bad progressives... when are you going to get started on zoophilia?
...seems to imply that sacrifice of children is somehow acceptable. I get this because you note 'sacrifice of children' 'homosexuality' and 'zoophilia,' and state 'two out of three major laws destroyed.' Homosexuality as one of these is a given from the topic at hand, and your last statement suggests that zoophilia is the only of the three still intact. But sacrifice of children is neither acceptable nor legal anywhere in the developed world. If you meant something else entirely, I'd love to hear it, but this is what it looks like you're saying.
Jewish dietary customs were essentially discarded by Jesus and many throw off the one verse about cloth with it... Was the prohibition against homosexuality just one verse? Nope... And sexual sin was never given any room for interpretation.
Where in the bible were the dietary customs discarded? And if one can throw off the verse about cloth, and one can throw off the verse about women covering their heads and remaining silent in church, etc then why can't one also throw off the verses regarding homosexuality? Seems to me this is just a case of picking and choosing.
Not that there's anything wrong with that. There is no reasonable line of thinking that allows for all of the books of the modern bible to be completely infallible, after all.
Abortion does not constitute sacrifice of children. Firstly, it is not sacrifice in most cases; cases where it is done to save the mother COULD be considered sacrificial, though, to be fair. Secondly, though, they are not children. They are fetuses. Before becoming a child, a fetus be born. This is more or less the meaning of the word. As such, while abortion does entail ending a human life, it does not constitute sacrifice of children.
Matthew 15:11 does not recant dietary customs; it merely states that the individual is not defiled by what goes into his or her mouth. This does not render all of the 'unclean' foods clean- seems to me it's more like saying that your soul isn't in danger solely due to having eaten something unclean.
You cite verses in response, but you don't speak regarding why those verses can't simply be thrown off; do you care to go into that?
Incidentally, look at Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, 1 Corinthians 6:9, and 1 Corinthians 5:9-11, yourself. Then look at Matthew 15:11. Looks to me like oral sex is just fine, no matter what combination of genders is involved! Jesus loves oral! Maybe thats why he kept Mary Magdalene around, eh? :P
Abortion does not constitute sacrifice of children.
Do you realize your entire argument rests on playing with words to dehumanize a person?
seems to me it's more like saying that your soul isn't in danger solely due to having eaten something unclean.
exactly...
You cite verses in response, but you don't speak regarding why those verses can't simply be thrown off; do you care to go into that?
It has a lot to do with chronology. 1 Corinthians was written after the crucifixion of Jesus to help explain to the early Christians how the faith should operate. There were debates over circumcision for example, dietary regulations, the law, etc. etc. From the beginning of the bible to the end, there is never an exception given to sexual sin.
Looks to me like oral sex is just fine, no matter what combination of genders is involved!
If you are just going to twist things around to suit your desired sick lifestyle what is the point of making the effort?
Do you realize your entire argument rests on playing with words to dehumanize a person?
It's not playing with words, at all- it's using the accepted dictionary definitions. Your argument, on the other hand, rests on playing with the definitions of 'sacrifice' and 'children' (as I've demonstrated) and now 'person' too. While a fetus is alive, and a fetus is human, a fetus is not a person. Personhood goes beyond being alive and biologically human, and includes self awareness, among other things. A brain dead individual, for example, is comprised of living tissue and is biologically human, but is no longer a person; everything that made them who they are is gone. This 'personhood' state of development is not achieved within the womb, and typically forms over the first year of life or so. Note that I do not advocate late-term abortion or early infanticide by saying this; I believe abortion should be limited to the first trimester except in extreme cases, as even if the fetus is not self aware, the central and peripheral nervous systems are usually sufficiently developed to feel pain midway through the second trimester.
It has a lot to do with chronology. 1 Corinthians was written after the crucifixion of Jesus to help explain to the early Christians how the faith should operate. There were debates over circumcision for example, dietary regulations, the law, etc. etc. From the beginning of the bible to the end, there is never an exception given to sexual sin.
Point of fact- if Jesus did exist, ALL of the books of the new testament were written after the crucifixion. The inclusion of books in the bible was determined by the canon and formed to fit the agenda of the church at that time; while some of the books of the bible may well have been divinely inspired, it's almost certain that not all of those included are. The bible is a creation of man, even if one accepts that portions of it are the word of god.
If you are just going to twist things around to suit your desired sick lifestyle what is the point of making the effort?
No, it looks to me like the bible specifically villifies men having sex with men, laying down with men as one lays with a woman, etc. It doesn't take any twisting to note that the phrasing of Matthew 15:11 does not specifically refer to food. I'll counter your question with one of my own: If you are just going to twist things around to suit your bigoted lifestyle, what is the point of making the effort?