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.
I don't like polygamy, but I don't have a valid reason to keep it illegal that also isn't found in monogamous marriage issues; aside from polygamy making it easier for those issues to rise.
I would like to point out just as a side note that I've also noticed a lot of people think bisexuality has to come with polyamory, bisexuality does not define whether one is monogamous or otherwise, neither do any of the other sexual orientations.
As long as its consentual among all parties involved, I believe a person should be allowed to take on as many spouses as they wish, be it a man, woman, straight, gay, bi, ect. If its not hurting anyone else, why not?
I'm fine with the idea, but it would need to be across the board, so to speak.
When we discuss gay marriage, the key idea is that gay couples should have the same rights as straight couples. But this idea would seem to grant bisexuals more rights than either heterosexuals or homosexuals.
If bisexuals are allowed to marry one of each, in the interest of equality both polygamy and polyandry should be allowed as well.
Personally, I would consider bisexual polyamory to be an ideal state in terms of freedom and romance, though I'm far too jealous to be able to pull off polyamory myself.
It would be great if government weren't involved in such things, but unfortunately they have been, and for too long.
There are a number of well-established benefits and rights associated with marriage, and a very sizeable portion of the population (and the government, for that matter) enjoying said benefits.
The government getting out of marriage and relationships altogether would, by necessity, mean that those rights and benefits could no longer be provided by the government. There are far too many married couples who enjoy or flatout depend upon those benefits for any hope of banning government involvement in marriage and relationships to fly.
It's a great thought, and an interesting thought exercise at that, but it's not remotely feasible at this stage.
Maybe it is not feasible. But think of it this way. Before there were ANY marriage benefits, people made do without and they survived just fine.
What you are saying is that people have become dependent on those benefits and that now they feel they are ENTITLED to those benefits. This means that ANY benefits offered by the government will eventually become, in the eyes of the recipients, an entitlement. This does not bode well for the government because if they can't take away those entitlements, then our economy is in jeopardy because as more and more benefits are granted, a greater and greater demand is made on the economy. Eventually, if/when it reaches a breaking point, we will be hard pressed to end those benefits. The (worse case scenario) end result is either the economy collapses under its own weight or the people revolt. ;)
Bisexuality is not equivalent to a polyamorous orientation. That said, as I have seen no solid basis for denying poly-marriage to bisexuals, homosexuals, or heterosexuals I see no reason why a polyamorous bisexual should not be allowed to wed a man and a woman.
While I don't like the debate title, because I feel as though it is rather stereotypical and prejudice to assume bisexuals generally want both at the same time, I am sure if a man has married two women before, and vice versa, or three women have married, etc, someone has desired to marry two individuals who happen to be different sexes. As long as all parties are consenting I have no objection to this.
OK the only reason why I called them "stupid" was because I was pissed of with that guy for shoving them down our throats and making bigoted anti-gay arguments.
The Buddha is an inspirational figure who actually achieved some one who has many peoples respect unlike Nicki. He has been remembered for 2,500 years, in 2,500 years time no one will know that a Nicki Minaj even existed.
Buddha lived a long time ago when there were a few people and no mass communication devices. More people know Nicki due to the internet than this Buddha guy you talk about. I mean, I bet he didn't even invent Yoga. And I know for a fact he didn't even event Yoga Pants. Have you seen Nicki in Yoga Pants? That's a religious experience right there. ;)
Actually they don't depict him as a fatty. The Chinese, many of whom are Buddhist realise that the Fat Buddha and the Historical Buddha are two different people, it is westerners like you that get them muddle up.
There is fault in everything and anything. To assert that there is no fault within Buddhism is to attach yourself to the idea of its perfection, which is rather contrary to its essence.
Because my point was not that there are faults, but that to form an attachment to Buddhism as perfection is contrary to the tenants of Buddhism itself.
Since you asked though, some faults for your consideration:
The general practice of celibacy amongst monks and nuns is patently absurd and unhealthy based upon scientific research on sexual repression. The notion of sex as an object of aversion flies in the face of human nature; sexual desire should not be condemned, merely attachment to that desire.
Additionally, the belief in reincarnation is assumptive and unsubstantiated; I think that it detracts from confronting the reality of mortality and represents a contradiction to accepting mortality and releasing attachment to notions of immortality.
Furthermore, there has been and remains a practice of discrimination against homosexual, bisexual, and transgender persons within multiple practices and from key leading figures such as the 14th Dalai Lama. This to me indicates that Buddhism is not invulnerable to corruption by human prejudice and ignorance.
Because my point was not that there are faults, but that to form an attachment to Buddhism as perfection is contrary to the tenants of Buddhism itself.
Then I don't get your disputing my point. It doesn't matter if it's contrary to it's own tenants, that would not change the fact of whether it is perfect or not.
The general practice of celibacy amongst monks and nuns is patently absurd and unhealthy based upon scientific research on sexual repression. The notion of sex as an object of aversion flies in the face of human nature; sexual desire should not be condemned, merely attachment to that desire.
But do you know for a fact that the monks and nuns are having health issues with their physicality or mentality? They could very well be perfectly fine, without sex.
Furthermore, there has been and remains a practice of discrimination against homosexual, bisexual, and transgender persons within multiple practices and from key leading figures such as the 14th Dalai Lama. This to me indicates that Buddhism is not invulnerable to corruption by human prejudice and ignorance.
Buddhism, itself, isn't flawed in this situation, the people whom are trying to represent are.
Then I don't get your disputing my point. It doesn't matter if it's contrary to it's own tenants, that would not change the fact of whether it is perfect or not.
My apologies. I made a false assumption there, and you are correct. I guess I am just accustomed to those proclaiming the truth of a religion as being followers themselves. I should have checked first.
But do you know for a fact that the monks and nuns are having health issues with their physicality or mentality? They could very well be perfectly fine, without sex.
Sex is a very basic human desire, and repression of that desire is psychologically and physically harmful to a person. Repression of any strong emotional or physical desire generally is not healthy. And while there are asexuals, I think it a stretch to claim that all monks and nuns.
Buddhism, itself, isn't flawed in this situation, the people whom are trying to represent are.
That is like saying that Christianity is not flawed for its homophobia. Religion is its practitioners and especially its leaders. Further, a religion that leaves itself open to abusing and repressing any population is flawed.
Curious on your thoughts in response to my reincarnation argument.
Buddhists don't believe in reincarnation they believe in rebirth.
And also Christianity as a religion is homophobic, not just because of the people in it but because of what it teaches.
While there may be homophobic people in Buddhism there is absolutely nothing written in any original Buddhist text condemning homosexuality and as Buddhism is a tolerant religion any one who is homophobic is not displaying Buddhist behaviour.
Buddhists don't believe in reincarnation they believe in rebirth.
Reincarnation, rebirth... my point is the same either way and you still need to refute it to claim Buddhism has no flaws.
And also Christianity as a religion is homophobic, not just because of the people in it but because of what it teaches. While there may be homophobic people in Buddhism there is absolutely nothing written in any original Buddhist text condemning homosexuality and as Buddhism is a tolerant religion any one who is homophobic is not displaying Buddhist behaviour.
There are Christians who would argue that their religion is not actually homophobic and that translational and historical context inform the text. I also do not think that you get to so easily dismiss the absolute fact that while Buddhism may not explicitly condemn homosexuality it was open enough to abuse so as to permit one of the major Buddhist leaders to use the faith to condemn homosexuals. That is the problem with all religions, including Buddhism - they are dogmatic and difficult to challenge, and generally lend themselves to supporting the prejudices of those who wield them. Regardless of the text.
OK to address your point on celibacy it is harder to attain the meditative states that monastics do while living a sex life.
And I can't really say this myself considering due to my age I have not had sex yet and I have not been able to attain them yet but I have heard that the bliss that can be reached through meditation such as Jhana, Tranquil Abiding and Tantric are far better than sex.
OK to address your point on celibacy it is harder to attain the meditative states that monastics do while living a sex life.
You will pardon me for not taking your assumption on face. Why is that? Being sexually active is no more a distraction than being hungry and eating, or thirsty and drinking, or tired and sleeping. It is a natural human desire, need, and function. The distraction would come from attachment to the desire.
And I can't really say this myself [...] but I have heard that the bliss that can be reached through meditation such as Jhana, Tranquil Abiding and Tantric are far better than sex.
Hearsay is hardly evidence, and realistically there is no objective way to asses which is better than the other. They do not stimulate the same part of the brain, that stimulation is not equal for all people, and the end result is a matter of personal ascription of values that is also variable.
You have also now dropped my responses to your arguments against my other points regarding rebirth and discrimination.
First of all Buddhism is not discriminative it is tolerant and the Dalai Lama is not a good Buddhist so he is not a good example and if you ask me he is more of a practitioner of the old pre-Buddhist Pagan mysticism indigenous to Tibet.
and rebirth does not detract from mortality because Buddhism teaches that being stuck in the cycle of dying and being reborn (samsara) is bad as it is a place full of suffering that you must try and escape so it clearly is not a way to escape our own impermanence.
First of all Buddhism is not discriminative it is tolerant and the Dalai Lama is not a good Buddhist so he is not a good example and if you ask me he is more of a practitioner of the old pre-Buddhist Pagan mysticism indigenous to Tibet.
For starters, saying that the Dalai Lama is not representative of Buddhism and that Tibetan Buddhism is not Buddhism would be like saying that the Pope is not Christian that that Catholicism is not Christian. One could easily strip away the Christian denominations and sects that discriminate and make an equal claim that in practice Christianity is not discriminatory.
More importantly, you have missed my overall point. That Buddhism has lent itself to discrimination demonstrates that this religion/faith is like all other faiths in that it is inherently vulnerable to such abuse by its very nature of being premised on subjective faith rather than objective fact or reason.
and rebirth does not detract from mortality because Buddhism teaches that being stuck in the cycle of dying and being reborn (samsara) is bad as it is a place full of suffering that you must try and escape so it clearly is not a way to escape our own impermanence.
Fine. In that case, Buddhism contradicts itself by preaching non-attachment and non-attainment while founding itself upon the principle of being averse to suffering and avoiding rebirth.
Additionally, this does nothing to refute my point that this belief is wholly assumptive and unsubstantiated. To believe in anything without proof or reason is fallible.
And now you have dropped my point about celibacy again.
First of all I never said that Tibetan Buddhism was not Buddhism, I am a Tibetan Buddhist myself. It is just the Dalai Lama's type of Tibetan Buddhism that has the native bon mixed in which involves shamans and the worship of non-Buddhist deities or spirits is not Buddhism.
And disliking suffering and samsara is not attachment it is non-attachment.
You are still saying that a type of Buddhism that its practitioners consider Buddhism and which is derived from the same Buddhist doctrines and beliefs is not Buddhism. You also have completely ignored (again) my point about the inherent subjectivity of religion/faith, and Buddhisms non-exceptionalism in this respect. My arguments on this front stand.
Dislike is inherently a form of aversion and emotional preference, and thus it is an emotional attachment. By setting a purpose and goal Buddhism creates a preferential attachment.
You again haven not addressed my celibacy argument.
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
- Leviticus 20:13
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
- Leviticus 18:22
Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by God for homosexuality.
-Genesis
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Two can play that game parenthesis added by me: 2 Samuel 1:26 I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love (ahab) to me was wonderful, passing the love (ahab) of women. 1 Samuel 18:1 And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit (qashar) with the soul (nephesh) of David, and Jonathan loved (ahab) him as his own soul. 1 Samuel 18:3 Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved (ahab) him as his own soul )nephesh). 1 Samuel 18:21 And Saul said, I will give him her, that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him. Wherefore Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son in law in the one of the twain (for the second time, but he had not married any of Saul's daughters yet, so this means that he married Jonathan). 1 Samuel 20:30 30 Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother’s nakedness (in the Biblical times, references to nakedness often symbolized sexuality or something sexual)? 1 Samuel 20:41 And as soon as the lad was gone, David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another (sounds romantic to me), and wept one with another, until David exceeded. 1 Samuel 20:42 42 And Jonathan said to David, Go in peace, forasmuch as we have sworn both of us in the name of the Lord, saying, The Lord be between me and thee, and between my seed and thy seed for ever. And he arose and departed: and Jonathan went into the city (this goes with the previous verse). Matthew 19:10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. 11 But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given. 12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it (the next set of Scriptures will elaborate on why the word eunuch sometimes refered to gays). Isaiah 56:3 Neither let the son of the stranger, that hath joined himself to the Lord, speak, saying, The Lord hath utterly separated me from his people: neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree.
4 For thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold of my covenant (this includes marriage); 5 even unto them will I give in mine house and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and of daughters (if women can be eunuchs, that shatters the theory that only castrated males can, meaning that gays can be eunuchs): I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off. Luke 17:34 34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed (self explanatory); the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left. 1 Corinthians 7:7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. 8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. 9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn (self explanatory).
I just proved it to youi by presenting the Scripture within context and with explanaotry notes and translations of the original languages. You have not.
If you had any credibility at any point, this post is where you lost any of it that remained.
You're seriously suggesting that you believe gay marriage, if made legal, will become the norm? And that heterosexual marriage will be outlawed? I believe that's sufficiently paranoid to warrant an intervention.
I have serious doubts that you are really a Christian and have a strong suspicion that you are really just a poe, but for now I will give you the benefit of the doubt. You keep posting the same verses over and over and down-voting everyone that disagrees with you, but when I challenge you on them you don't respond. So from now on every time you post those verses I will copy and paste this argument until I get a response.
Leviticus also says...
"Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death."
“Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed."
“Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material."
"Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard."
“If a man has sexual relations with a woman during her monthly period, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them are to be cut off from their people."
Sorry but I don't take quotes from the Bible any more seriously than I take quotes from Harry Potter. The Bible is the last place we should be getting our morality from. The god described in the Bible is one of the most immoral beings man has ever dreamed up.
1. He says slavery is okay (Leviticus 25:44-46).
2. He says it's okay to beat your slaves as long as they survive the beating for a few days (Exodus 21:20-21).
3. He says selling your daughters as slaves and/or wives is okay (Exodus 21:7).
4. He tells his followers to make entire cities into slaves or kill them if they don't cooperate and keep the women as "plunder" (Deut 20:10-15)
5. He kills people for trying to be helpful (2 Samuel 6:3-7)
6. He and his followers go on massive killing sprees numerous times throughout the Bible, often killing children and animals. (1 Samuel 15:2-3, Joshua 8:1-29, Joshua 6:20-21, Judges 20:23-48, 2 Kings 19:35, Jeremiah 50:21-22, etc.)
This next passage shows just how depraved the Biblical god is. It's very long so I trimmed it some to keep it a reasonable length.
Deuteronomy 28:15-68 "Moses and the elders of Israel commanded the people... if you do not obey the Lord your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come on you and overtake you: You will be cursed in the city and cursed in the country... The fruit of your womb will be cursed, and the crops of your land, and the calves of your herds and the lambs of your flocks... The Lord will send on you curses, confusion and rebuke in everything you put your hand to, until you are destroyed and come to sudden ruin because of the evil you have done in forsaking him. The Lord will plague you with diseases until he has destroyed you from the land you are entering to possess. The Lord will strike you with wasting disease, with fever and inflammation, with scorching heat and drought, with blight and mildew, which will plague you until you perish... The Lord will turn the rain of your country into dust and powder; it will come down from the skies until you are destroyed. The Lord will cause you to be defeated before your enemies... and you will become a thing of horror to all the kingdoms on earth. Your carcasses will be food for all the birds and the wild animals... The Lord will afflict you with the boils of Egypt and with tumors, festering sores and the itch, from which you cannot be cured. The Lord will afflict you with madness, blindness and confusion of mind. At midday you will grope about like a blind person in the dark. You will be unsuccessful in everything you do; day after day you will be oppressed and robbed, with no one to rescue you. You will be pledged to be married to a woman, but another will take her and rape her... Your sons and daughters will be given to another nation, and you will wear out your eyes watching for them day after day, powerless to lift a hand... you will have nothing but cruel oppression all your days. The sights you see will drive you mad. The Lord will afflict your knees and legs with painful boils that cannot be cured, spreading from the soles of your feet to the top of your head."
So to sum all that up, if we don't do exactly as he says he will make our lives a living hell and torture us until the day we die, and then after we die he will sentence us to eternal torment in hell. Does that sound like the actions of a kind and loving god to you? After reading all that do you really think we should get our morality from the Bible?
I am seriously sick and tired of all the biphobic nonsense this site spouts.
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination:they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
It is clearly stated as a sin in the bible so I don't get how your saying how that is biphobic and homophobic
Well the bible is a homophobic and biphobic book and in my opinion very evil and you have absolutely no evidence to prove that the bible is not a load nonsense.
"Furthermore, abandoning the use of intoxicants, the disciple of the noble ones abstains from taking intoxicants. In doing so, he gives freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings."-The buddha
Of course. How else do you justify the statement that by not taking intoxicants you fix oppression? You fix oppression by taking intoxicants! Let's say you're being oppressed. Now you have two options, you either rebel, and thus put yourself in danger and risk inviting animosity towards you, or you take some intoxicants and it all goes away ;)
If a heterosexual man is forced to pick between two women, then a bisexual person must pick between a man and a woman and be done with it. For better or for worse. Till death sets you free. ;)
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
- Leviticus 20:13
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.
- Leviticus 18:22
Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by God for homosexuality.
-Genesis
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
I have serious doubts that you are really a Christian and have a strong suspicion that you are really just a poe, but for now I will give you the benefit of the doubt. You keep posting the same verses over and over and down-voting everyone that disagrees with you, but when I challenge you on them you don't respond. So from now on every time you post those verses I will copy and paste this argument until I get a response.
Leviticus also says...
"Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death."
“Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed."
“Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material."
"Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard."
“If a man has sexual relations with a woman during her monthly period, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them are to be cut off from their people."
Sorry but I don't take quotes from the Bible any more seriously than I take quotes from Harry Potter. The Bible is the last place we should be getting our morality from. The god described in the Bible is one of the most immoral beings man has ever dreamed up.
1. He says slavery is okay (Leviticus 25:44-46).
2. He says it's okay to beat your slaves as long as they survive the beating for a few days (Exodus 21:20-21).
3. He says selling your daughters as slaves and/or wives is okay (Exodus 21:7).
4. He tells his followers to make entire cities into slaves or kill them if they don't cooperate and keep the women as "plunder" (Deut 20:10-15)
5. He kills people for trying to be helpful (2 Samuel 6:3-7)
6. He and his followers go on massive killing sprees numerous times throughout the Bible, often killing children and animals. (1 Samuel 15:2-3, Joshua 8:1-29, Joshua 6:20-21, Judges 20:23-48, 2 Kings 19:35, Jeremiah 50:21-22, etc.)
This next passage shows just how depraved the Biblical god is. It's very long so I trimmed it some to keep it a reasonable length.
Deuteronomy 28:15-68 "Moses and the elders of Israel commanded the people... if you do not obey the Lord your God and do not carefully follow all his commands and decrees I am giving you today, all these curses will come on you and overtake you: You will be cursed in the city and cursed in the country... The fruit of your womb will be cursed, and the crops of your land, and the calves of your herds and the lambs of your flocks... The Lord will send on you curses, confusion and rebuke in everything you put your hand to, until you are destroyed and come to sudden ruin because of the evil you have done in forsaking him. The Lord will plague you with diseases until he has destroyed you from the land you are entering to possess. The Lord will strike you with wasting disease, with fever and inflammation, with scorching heat and drought, with blight and mildew, which will plague you until you perish... The Lord will turn the rain of your country into dust and powder; it will come down from the skies until you are destroyed. The Lord will cause you to be defeated before your enemies... and you will become a thing of horror to all the kingdoms on earth. Your carcasses will be food for all the birds and the wild animals... The Lord will afflict you with the boils of Egypt and with tumors, festering sores and the itch, from which you cannot be cured. The Lord will afflict you with madness, blindness and confusion of mind. At midday you will grope about like a blind person in the dark. You will be unsuccessful in everything you do; day after day you will be oppressed and robbed, with no one to rescue you. You will be pledged to be married to a woman, but another will take her and rape her... Your sons and daughters will be given to another nation, and you will wear out your eyes watching for them day after day, powerless to lift a hand... you will have nothing but cruel oppression all your days. The sights you see will drive you mad. The Lord will afflict your knees and legs with painful boils that cannot be cured, spreading from the soles of your feet to the top of your head."
So to sum all that up, if we don't do exactly as he says he will make our lives a living hell and torture us until the day we die, and then after we die he will sentence us to eternal torment in hell. Does that sound like the actions of a kind and loving god to you? After reading all that do you really think we should get our morality from the Bible?