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.
Nope I just do not think the government should give out marriage licensees personally. Where in my arguments did I ever said gays should be treated as slaves?
The 14th amendment has been used many many times to justify decisions by the courts and none of those had to do with slavery. I just wanted to illustrate how bad I thought your point was.
Since you aren't advocating the complete abolishment of government recognizing marriage, then I would say it is a right because the government has recognized it that way for straights.
The government probably doesn't need to do it any more and it should be removed for everyone, though.
The 14th amendment has been used many many times to justify decisions by the courts and none of those had to do with slavery. I just wanted to illustrate how bad I thought your point was.
Since you aren't advocating the complete abolishment of government recognizing marriage, then I would say it is a right because the government has recognized it that way for straights.
The government probably doesn't need to do it any more and it should be removed for everyone, though.
My point is when they were signing the 14th amendment I don't think they meant gay marriage.
I also think that the same arguments for gay marriage could be used for polygamous marriages by using a broad view of the 14th amendment. Also I would like to note I am avoiding the slippery slope fallacy by stating that I am not saying it will lead to it but that the same arguments could be applied to it.
Why is polygamy wrong? If everyone involved is consenting adults, and they want to marry five different people, who cares? Just like if a guy wants to marry a guy, why does everyone else get all freaked out? If gay marriage is legal, it does not mean that everyone must enter into a marriage with their own sex, and polygamy does not mean everyone must have multiple spouses. So what difference does it possibly make? Just because an argument in favor of gay marriage can also justify polygamy doesn't make it less valid and shouldn't prevent it from being used.
Additionally, the fourteenth amendment wasn't about slavery, it was about protecting the rights of ex-slaves who were still being treated poorly (although, admittedly it didn't do that very well...). The thirteenth amendment is what abolished slavery. A large part of interpreting constitutional law relies on the precedent set by the Supreme Court. In the case of the 14th amendment, it has been translated to include any person who is not being treated equally under law. This meant it ruled bans on mixed race marriages to be unconstitutional, with the Court saying that marriage is a legal contract that citizens of the US can enter into, and should not be kept from any citizen of the US. In Yick Wo vs Hopkins, the Court stated that the 14th amendment was applicable to all races, colors, nationalities, without regard to differences, and in 1971, gender was also something that provided equal protection. 1975 saw disability be added to the list of protection, and 2006 is when homosexuality was decided to be included under gender. With that in mind, bans on gay marriage are unconstitutional and now it is simply a matter of enforcing it.
Why is polygamy wrong? If everyone involved is consenting adults, and they want to marry five different people, who cares? Just like if a guy wants to marry a guy, why does everyone else get all freaked out? If gay marriage is legal, it does not mean that everyone must enter into a marriage with their own sex, and polygamy does not mean everyone must have multiple spouses. So what difference does it possibly make? Just because an argument in favor of gay marriage can also justify polygamy doesn't make it less valid and shouldn't prevent it from being used.
Yes when I meant it was about slavery I meant that as it was part of the "civil war amendments". My point is that was definitely not the original intent of the amendment we can argue all day on whether we should have a "living Constitution" such as the federalists promoted or a original intent Constitution. I personally side with original intent myself.
That is not the main point. I don't think any marriage is a "right" as in basic human rights.
My point is when they were signing the 14th amendment I don't think they meant gay marriage.
A worthless point, good for you.
I also think that the same arguments for gay marriage could be used for polygamous marriages by using a broad view of the 14th amendment. Also I would like to note I am avoiding the slippery slope fallacy by stating that I am not saying it will lead to it but that the same arguments could be applied to it.
Having one wife is hard enough, let guys have more wives. The second wife should get you a medal.
That's cool. Hypocrites thrive here. It doesn't make sense for it to be states rights. It has federal implications. Plus, a gay couple in Texas isn't really any different than a gay couple in Ohio.
Your debate specifically says gay marriage. So, you aren't talking about marriage in general. I say marriage is a right as long as the government gives out licenses.
families like in ancient times? This leads to arranged/forces marriages which is inconsistent with our constitution. Also marriage is a really big deal and heavily involves a lot of different parts of society and government including a lot of paperwork. The average family isn't equipped at all to handle it.
churches they already do as you know and what if you don't subscribe to the church's religion? What if you don't subscribe to any religion? And what if you just don't want it in a church/place of worship? It isn't right to force people to have a ceremony in a religious place they don't want to or don't belong to.
organizations and this is different than government? Like I said before it heavily envolves a lot of different things. Taxes, lawyers, contracts, ect. What organization is equipped for this?
I do not see why the government needs to be in people's love life for tax purposes.
The government couldn't give less of a shit about who anyone loves, they provide them because people have the right to life liberty and the persuit of happiness. Marriage is included in this. And they also provide it because marriage is a contract that entitles a couple to different status in the eyes of the state and government for various things not only taxes. Who is better equipped to handle this than the government itself? Also, any citizen can have access to the government's marriage licenses as opposed to religious institutions which can deny them to people, and who may not appeal to people of different religions.
Honestly I could care less if it was about slavery!! The point is gay marriage is and should be a civil right. People have the right to have a religion or to not have one. We live in a country that is support to separate church and state, marriage can be defined as both. Nobody is hurting you by other people getting married..
I only believe the government has the right to protect life and essential liberty with essential liberty defined as the right to not be murdered, tortured, or otherwise abused. Any government function outside of that is tyranny, so its a yes and no question.
Well the LGBT people have made the wrong choice: to force their beliefs on the majority of the population through their lobbies in the senate / government / states.
The majority of Americans do not support gay marriage.
I'm not telling anyone what to do. It's these gay couples who are telling the rest of society it should accept the new redefined meaning of "marriage".
Gays are sick and disgusting and you get diseases and it's morally wrong. Stomps away crying hysterically, with the crisis line on the phone, waiting for a waaaaaambulance, contemplating faking my own demise. Give Sparky my regards. :'(
I was just showing her that those things that she said to me can also be said to gays. I am honestly for gay rights and I would help support gays if I didn't have problems of my own.
Men that fuck men have no right to be a victim. I will easily win this argument like I have many of times before so I would just shut up if I were you.
Im a serious debater not a troll unlike some people. Do you have anything to say regarding same sex marriage or are you mad cuz Rover has you on the couch again? ;)
I would shut up if I were you. Not a chance in Hell, sonny boy. I will believe, do, and say whatever I want. Freedom of belief, choice, and speech, you know. It's ironic that you want the freedom to fuck your dog, but you won't allow me the basis right of freedom of speech. Ding, ding, ding, HYPOCRITE!
I will give anyone freedom of speech. I just don't want to debate with you on this because I have study and have done more research on this then you. I am just not going to be nice to someone that can't given understand or reason with me. I honestly don't care if you want it to be illegal I just want you to respect that I have feelings too and that I want to be in love as much as anyone else.
So fuck you and your "lets outsmart everyone by saying oh lol marriage on its own isn't a right, so gay marriage isn't either."
Mind telling me what the fuck that link shows? And for the morons out there (clearly far too many) you might wanna scroll down to the "marriage as a fundamental right" section. Just saying.
I mean seriously, is it that fucking hard to look for a list of rights? Or have you all stopped using reason and just making up false facts and statistics?
So fuck you and your "lets outsmart everyone by saying oh lol marriage on its own isn't a right, so gay marriage isn't either."
Mind telling me what the fuck that link shows? And for the morons out there (clearly far too many) you might wanna scroll down to the "marriage as a fundamental right" section. Just saying.
I mean seriously, is it that fucking hard to look for a list of rights? Or have you all stopped using reason and just making up false facts and statistics?
The questions should really be "Is marriage a civil right"?, since that's the real issue since if marriage is a civil right then gay marriage is by definition also a civil right.
But regarding the question itself, yes, they should have the right to be just as miserable as the rest of us.
Marriage itself is a civil right. Everyone has the right to marry (enter in to a legal contract) with whomever they love. It's "gay" marriage, it marriage equality. The actual question at hand here is malformed.
He does have a problem but he can't do a thing about it can he? You have zero respect for his property and when he bans you you simply make another account. Disgusting. But what can one expect from someone who posts indecent nude images of children to make their political points.
yes because everyone deserves to be with the person they love wether of the opposite race or of the same gender it doesn't matter we all deserve to be equal.
It's the natural right of anyone to get married to anyone else. Gay people should be properly ashamed of themselves and keep that private though. It's damaging and disruptive to society and normal mental health in general.
I don't believe that marriage - gay or otherwise - is a civil right.
Still though- under US law, this shouldn't even be an issue. The government recognizes marriage as an institution and offers benefits for it; it is illegal to deny that recognition and those benefits based on sexual orientation, and it is also illegal to legally define marriage as solely being between a man and a woman for that exact same reason. The government simply does not have the right to deny gay marriage; any legislation to that affect would be unconstitutional. Not that that stops them much these days...
Really, the government shouldn't be involved with marriage at all, and should really just butt the hell out of it- even if that means that married couples have to lose their benefits. Or even simpler, just wipe out the word marriage entirely (in the governments vocabulary, at least) in favor of a new term, attach the benefits to the new term, and be done with it. People want to get married? They can find an organization that will marry them (though straight couples will still probably have an easier time of it, its no longer the governments problem). No benefits attached to marriage; you want to file a joint tax return? Put in the paperwork for a government recognized partnership.
Marriage is holy, and homosexuality is not holy. You can not continue the natural course of nature if you are gay, therefore why should it be celebrated?
the only good thing about homosexuality is it helps keep the population down.
At least insofar as the US government is concerned, they are not legally allowed to recognize the holy/unholy status of a given arrangement or relationship.
Homosexuality is in fact natural, as it can be observed in numerous other species. Why should heterosexuality be celebrated? If we're glorifying breeding, then man is completely inferior to rodents, insects, microbes, etc.
Unless you can explain how the US government is in anyway authorized to discriminate between homosexual and heterosexual couples, you don't have a case here.
You vastly understate the benefit of population control as well.
Homosexuality is in fact natural, as it can be observed in numerous other species.
Ok, but those species are not going to survive, they will have no kin to carry on, and they will effectively become extinct. Including humans. If you are the only child born to only child parents, and you are gay, your family is going to end. You can donate sperm, but it will never be the same for the child because they will not be with their natural parents.
Unless you can explain how the US government is in anyway authorized to discriminate between homosexual and heterosexual couples, you don't have a case here.
The government has no say in who marries, but marriage should be used to raise a family, and children, and keep the family going.
If you want to raise kids through adoption, fine, but don't get married and start a generational family that won't even be related to each other down the road
Ok, but those species are not going to survive, they will have no kin to carry on, and they will effectively become extinct.
Those species do, in fact, survive. Kin is not limited to children; siblings are kin as well, for example. Obviously it would be problematic if a species were exclusively homosexual, but that isn't the case. And when you're getting into lines ending, well, we're already overpopulated. No problem there.
The government has no say in who marries, but marriage should be used to raise a family, and children, and keep the family going.
Says who? The moral thing to do right now is to limit the number of children one has. If you have more than 2, you are contributing to overpopulation.
You still have not disputed any of my points, or really addressed anything in this exchange, and I can only presume you are unable to at this point.
Not when we're talking about civil rights and legislation; those are entirely the domain of man. And in fact, the christian god has more or less commanded that believers submit to the law of the land, and in more than one place.
Indirectly, Matthew 22:21, and Directly, Romans 13:1-8.
As you can see, christians themselves are more or less commanded to respect the rulings of the government, even if that means gay marriage.
You can not place family values on a homosexual relationship.
If the couple can not bear a child together due to biological issues, then there should be no talk of marriage. Marriage is sacred, and it loses its value when it is meant for something specific and is overtaken.
Just commit for life. Don't make a holy union in front of god and mock his word.
You can not place family values on a homosexual relationship.
Why not? I've seen far more dysfunctional 'traditional' families than I've seen dysfunctional homosexual couples with adopted children- I know several such couples personally and have encountered others. A homosexual couple can impart every single family value, except those ones pertaining to sexual orientation.
If the couple can not bear a child together due to biological issues, then there should be no talk of marriage. Marriage is sacred, and it loses its value when it is meant for something specific and is overtaken.
Just commit for life. Don't make a holy union in front of god and mock his word.
Except when we're talking about marriage we aren't talking about a holy union in front of god. If a pair of atheists has a civil ceremony at the local courthouse, they are considered married, but that is hardly a holy union in front of god, by any stretch.
That said- I'm all for marriage being relegated to a religious context, but as long as we're using the same term for the licensed establishment controlled by the government, we can't differentiate between types of couples. I believe, as stated, that the government should stop recognizing marriage period. If a couple wants to get married in a church, they are free to do so, but if they want to enjoy benefits from the government ie. tax breaks, power of attorney in medical scenarios, etc, they would need to establish a licensed partnership with the government to do so. This partnership should not differentiate between heterosexual, homosexual, or other couples (allowing for the full LGBT spectrum and then some) either in benefits or in terminology.
Except for the fact that you stop the natural course of life from flowing, life, one of the most, if not the most, sacred things on this planet, can not happen through homosexual relations.
Sex is not just for reproduction. Its also about bonding with your partner and having a good time. I cant have children, is it wrong for me to have sex?
I didn't say it was just for reproduction. I'm sorry you are not able to give birth. It is not wrong for you to have sex but, sexual sin is wrong, and i am not saying i am free of sexual sin, i am working to make my life sin free
Thanks. The thing that sucks is when i dream about being happily married and pregnant and wake up single and unable to have kids. Just for the record: would you have a problem with contraception?
I used to have a problem with being infertile/not being able to conceive, at least the thought of it, but then i realized i have too much to do in this life to focus on a child.
I would really, really, REALLY love to have kids one day, but if it doesn't happen due to my significant other being infertile or what not, it is okay because i will be able to focus on the lords work! (Not that a baby isn't worthy of being called the "lords work" ! LOL)
I refuse to indulge your trolling. this debate is about same sex marriage, not your animal screwing perversion. This is a debate site, not a troll forum. Smooches. ;)
Troll: One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument.
Trolling: Being a prick on the internet because you can. Typically unleashing one or more cynical or sarcastic remarks on an innocent by-stander, because it's the internet and, hey, you can.
Example: Guy: "I just found the coolest ninja pencil in existence." Other Guy: "I just found the most retarded thread in existence."
Conclusion: You going off topic and bringing up a completely irrelevant topic just to feed your ego is trolling.
I present my civil disagreement for your debating pleasure. Since gays are the same living human as straights, why not allow the same rights? Can you see what Im saying?
My contention that government should get the hell out of marriage entirely would, in fact, amount to equal rights for gays and straights under the law. Did you read my entire post?
What? I never said they never had a right, i was just saying what you are asking for should have never been a right to ask for in the first place. So straight and interracial marriage isn't a civil right either.
I know, Im just tired of Christians acting all superior to other people. Besides, this is a debate site. If people dont wanna debate, why are they here?
I know, Im just tired of Christians acting all superior to other people. Besides, this is a debate site. If people dont wanna debate, why are they here?
I know, Im just tired of Christians acting all superior to other people. Besides, this is a debate site. If people dont wanna debate, why are they here?
I dig it. I agree with most of your statement. I also think that the gov should eff off unless its a matter of life or essential liberty. There is way to much government already.
Maybe it's considered to be a right, but it shouldn't - exactly for the reason that this can create a back-door for such legal manipulations and constructs as "gay marriage".
Driving a car is not really a civil right, because otherwise we could raise the question why aren't blind people allowed to drive cars.
You are not penalized, you happen to be in a bracket that causes more money to be paid. A few people paying extra doesn't invalidate all of the other people who save money. Plus, that is just one benefit. A marriage license gets you into hospitals for visiting and allows you to make medical decisions for your spouse. A driver's license doesn't. A marriage license allows you to receive inheritance when your spouse dies. A driver's license doesn't. A marriage license allows you to share insurance with your spouse, a driver's license doesn't.
You are not penalized, you happen to be in a bracket that causes more money to be paid. A few people paying extra doesn't invalidate all of the other people who save money. Plus, that is just one benefit. A marriage license gets you into hospitals for visiting and allows you to make medical decisions for your spouse. A driver's license doesn't. A marriage license allows you to receive inheritance when your spouse dies. A driver's license doesn't. A marriage license allows you to share insurance with your spouse, a driver's license doesn't.
The government could do something so that friends or dates or people that decided to marry outside the government benefits like that.
Now we are off topic. Now you are talking about legalizing marriage. My question for you is what would that change? Gay people can get together and get the benefits. What would be missing? Not calling it marriage? Not actually issuing a license for it?
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you here. But, the government being able to do something to make the gays happy doesn't change whether it is a civil right or not. I am actually a little pissed at gay people for not taking this option.
Ugh.. What sort of micropenis must you have to feel the need to bitch over such nitty gritty shit like that?? I mean honestly, does it make you any more of a better debater, or person for that matter, to have said If everyone doesn't notice it, then it isn't obvious.
No. It just makes you look like a bitch. Just fuck off Intang I con't care if people here agree with you or not, I don't, and if you wanna win this debate then be my fucking guest I honestly do not care. I just find entertainment in pissing off assholes like you, as I a sure this will. By all means, feel free to comment back " Oh I don't care what some internet kid says, you're just pathetic" but you and I both know this will irritate you, thus enabling me to fall asleep tonight happy and with a smile on my face.
You must be one of dem alt troll accounts... Your personality consist of..
Constant Dumb insults towards random users that have done nothing to you.(I guess you want to fit in with the sites "liked" trolls?)
Projecting what you're feeling onto other people and assume that they are feeling it too.
Hypocrisy.
Attention whoring: You're always saying stuff like "Hey guys, what about me?" or "Why am I not included in this?"
Bipolar disorder.
You think when someone disputes, it means that they are angry.
Did I guess right? Or are you really just that stupid and overemotional?
How is If everyone doesn't notice it, then it isn't obvious. "bitching? There were no insults at all, it was a straightforward rational argument. You just got pissed off because you don't like getting one-uped by someone you don't like.
Sure thang buddeh XD And yeah I do seek attention, well fucking observed mr "I can read what other users say" damn, Holmes ain't got sheit on yiz :P
uuh what else..? Oh yeah Bipolar- nope not me, just argumentative. Paranoid maybe, in fact more than maybe, but not bipolar, and so on and so forth really I waste my time.
WHat else ws I going to say? Oh yeah, fuck you :)
So glad I was able to piss you off, as I surely have. I do hope you dont mind the way I answer you, but I simply cannot be bothered. I mean, not for you anyway :)
And you're right, I am a alt troll account. after, what, 2 years- uh huh I am a JC account. Also Prodigee, and Hellno. But wait, aren't they all the same? Ooh the plot thickens doesn't it.
Ha! Oh my God, the latter! The FUCKING latter everybody! Jeez get a load of this guy, I mean yes, if ever there was a reason for 'laugh out loud' to exist, it is this. I mean caps off for you sir, I too laughed out loud at that!
I wish they didn't cause I don't give a fuck about them. Or you for that matter. Intang, if that turned out to be your name, and they announced your death on the news, you really think I, or anyone else on here would truly be sad? The majourity would be happy. They would actually think "Good, that stuck-up bastard is not gonna be trolling us anymore."
How's it feel? Realising that truly, no one would care, and that your presence has just made other peoples lives on here, that little bit worse.
I hope I don't feel the way you do you bastard, I don't want to be affiliated with you in any way shape or form. Apart from maybe the guy who pushed you over the edge.
And so what? Actually good point Andrew well done, so fucking what if I was "going again" what does it matter, you going to fucking arrest me for repeating an action, sorry, are idiosyncrasies or personality traits not allowed?
You're right. Suppose I better make it cancer then? No wait. I imagine heart attacks run in your family, you seem like the type. Or would that be going a step too far? Hmm?
Marriage is a privilege given by the people, to people they chose to give it to. The people chose to give married couples tax breaks and benefits because they want to encourage marriage, not gay marriage.
