CreateDebate


Debate Info

13
8
They Should They Shouldn't
Debate Score:21
Arguments:21
Total Votes:22
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 They Should (11)
 
 They Shouldn't (7)

Debate Creator

grapesNcrepe(167) pic



LGBTQs should be allowed rights

Recently, there has been people saying that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry. I would like to see other people's opinions. Please be kind and courteous, and have sensical posts. 

They Should

Side Score: 13
VS.

They Shouldn't

Side Score: 8
2 points

They are people. Human beings. So, if the question is about whether they should be given their man rights, the obvious answer is yes.

Side: They Should

Thank you, it is easy to forget the basics, but you remembered that no matter what, they're still humans.

Side: They Should

LGBTQ people are just as deserving as straight ones. They should be seen as normal people, and not 'weird'.

Side: They Should
cruzaders(341) Clarified
0 points

Its not a question about deserving, or even about love

About the normal aspect you can answer it in a few different ways:

-the "norm" is what most people do =heterosexual marriages; difference is perceived as weird, and it is normal, its in human nature

- In most of cases (or all cases, but thats debatable), gay people become that way because of parental issues, I know several myself and it seems to always follow the same pattern

Concerning people who think there are more than two genders, the matter is a bit more complex because they try to explain their "inclination" is natural and can be philosofically proven; if you talk to them you will soon see they can hardly have rationnal proofs, most of their "argumentation" seems to be based on emotion alone

Side: They Should
HyperComm5(29) Disputed
1 point

You can't be with someone you don't get physically (and visually) aroused with.

Its like watching a vampire show will promote an agenda for me to grow wings and turn to a vampire bat.

That doesn't make any sense.

Is that rational enough or no?

Side: They Shouldn't
1 point

I think they should because, at the end of the day, they are still human beings. They are allowed their basic human rights. I don't think we should create new 'rights' or law exceptions for them. Like bill C16 in Canada or transgender bathrooms.

Side: They Should

Homophobia has caused so much danger to this oppressed group. There is nothing wrong with loving someone the same gender as you. And no, you don't have to be gay to support gay rights.

Side: They Should

Marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Not a woman and a woman!

Side: They Shouldn't

There has not been a description made on the loss of United States Constitutional Right. This was criminal trial held in a Civil Court of law without representation. Both crimes take place at the same time so the idea is double jeopardy would create an immunity.

It is not a point of what should be allowed. Sadly it is the point of what was legal. There is no legal reason a Federal, State, or local Court must witness a union between two couples of the same gender, THEY TAKE PLACE EVERY DAY WITH NO ISSUE LEGALLY. or interfere with private likelihood. No reason for the Courts to instruct the public must see, must say. What you are saying is that Gay and Lesbian couples should have rights that extend beyond or exceed their limits placed on personal choice, gender, and United States Constitution.

Because of the nature of the first crime that has taken place. There is a Fraud by describing the only crime as discrimination. The extent of the Civil War which has been taking place globally. The lack of Constitutional representation made by these groups in the United States. The argument is no longer just about if they can be married legally as a couple. It is how they are not Binivir. Civil Union, or UnosMulier by common law. To receive judicial Constitutional separation. In a separation process to insure liberty.

Unlike abortion were the felony crime is confessed by self-incrimination. The attack made on United States Constitution is not limited to the suggested types of people. Gay and Lesbian couples have been also subject to accusation that can be placed against people who may not been granted representation by law used to govern them. It may not be directly related to persona choice involving sex. Make no mistake they had Constitutional Right all along.

Basic principle is all male and female couple are publicly witnessed by their ability to procreate and conceive citizens of a Nation. Again here we are testing the boundary of Civil War, and voter fraud as well as other issues.

This is a State of the Union address made on the United States Constitution.

Side: They Shouldn't
1 point

I dont know if this exist in the US but in France there was already a type of union for gays (its called 'pacs'), that was very beneficial to them as the law gives them financial advantages, it is easier to divorce and other thing

The perception of mariage is diiferent between the US and France, in the US it only is a contract (wich is why it justifies divorce, bc a contract cannot be eternally viable) while in France it is at the same time a contract and an "institution" meaning its a "historical" and religious ceremony (and christianity condems homosexuality)

I think it was more of a kick in the teeth of the right religious wing more than anything else (even homosexuals milit against marriage for several reasons; furthurmore look at the numbers of homosexual marriages, they are insanely low)

I realise this doesnt really answer the question, just sharing thoughts :)

Side: They Shouldn't
John_C_1812(275) Clarified
1 point

In the United States Marriage is a likelihood and by United States Constitution it is just simple a separation process. It does not just matter what it is called, as this only effects one of the crimes taking place. One crime does not limit other nor do laws limit the exposer to crime. Crime can still takes place with pacs, or in my case Binivir. This is due to the legal Right of any Nation to address citizen ship inside its own borders.

Side: They Should
cruzaders(341) Clarified
1 point

I am not sure I understand what you mean. You cant be saying that marriage is a crime?

Side: They Should
1 point

Do you want men having 30 wives? When you go down this ludicrous equal right's for marriage slippery slope, every group of people can claim they want equal rights also. They will want to have 30 wives, marry consenting teens, marry animals, etc. etc.

Side: They Shouldn't
1 point

Thank you (not) for completely misinterpreting the situation. I'm saying that this growing population of people deserve rights.

Side: They Should
FromWithin(6481) Disputed Banned
1 point

AND I REPEAT DO MEN WHO WANT 30 WIVES DESERVE THEIR RIGHTS?

HOW ABOUT THE RIGHTS OF MEN AND CONSENTING TEENS WHO WANT TO MARRY?

HOW ABOUT THE MAN WHO WANTS TO LEAVE HIS INHERITANCE TO HIS DOG, SO HE WANTS TO MARRY THE DOG, AND GIVE HIS DOG THE SAME MARRIAGE BENEFITS AS OTHERS HAVE.

Do you understand the concept of the slippery slope.

Side: They Shouldn't
cruzaders(341) Disputed
1 point

Numbers dont makes rights .

Side: They Shouldn't
Atrag(5433) Disputed Banned
1 point

Hellno you spaz. Does it really give you jollies just to repeat? Well you have done it every day for the past year or so... this is what happens when you ask for child open and have to flee the site in disgrace I gjess

Side: They Should
Atrag(5433) Disputed Banned
1 point

Hellno you spaz. Does it really give you jollies just to repeat? Well you have done it every day for the past year or so... this is what happens when you ask for child open and have to flee the site in disgrace I guess

Side: They Should