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.
Romans 1:26 and Leviticus 20:13 both strongly argue against sodomite marriage. It is also a well known fact that sodomites live 20 years shorter and carry a variety of diseases such as AIDS which is and was killing off the Homosexual population. It is also against nature. It also is a slippery slope to polygamy and incest and other perversions.
Lets take this point by point since you keep throwing this out here since you came in.
1:26 and Leviticus 20:13 both strongly argue against sodomite marriage.
Aside from the issue of cherry picking only portions of old testament you agree with (I am just going to assume that you don't condone slavery or have issues with mixed fabrics etc.) you are mixing this with new testament. But that's not the real issue here, the issue is you are arguing that a governing body should make laws respecting a religion. If you live in the states I see this as problematic.
It is also a well known fact that sodomites live 20 years shorter and carry a variety of diseases such as AIDS which is and was killing off the Homosexual population.
This one is a two parter, first off there is no reputable source that claims homosexuals live shorter spans than any other sexuality. The research that backs your claim was conducted by Paul Cameron of the family Research Institute and has been refuted due to HUGE methodological errors. For instance demographers have noted the numbers to be highly non representative of the homosexual population as Cameron's selection method is deeply flawed.
The second part of your claim is about health risks and you cite HIV/AIDS as your support. Well newsflash....straight people have HIV/AIDS too. Here is a kicker though, according to the Center for Disease Control homosexual women have less instances of STDs (including HIV) than heterosexual men and women. If your measure of this being bad is STD's then homosexual women must be left out of the equation to arrive at the same conclusion you did. Doesn't that sound like a terrible methodology? For instance if an alien race excluded all women on the planet they would conclude that all homo sapiens have a penis or if they excluded men they would assume all homo sapiens give birth. Clearly this is not an objective measure.
It is also against nature.
Petition of principle. No science supports your claim, in fact quite the opposite. Homosexual behavior has been recorded in mammals, birds, fish, insects and amphibians. This behavior is seen all throughout nature. The rebuttal to this information is usually some sort of strawman claiming something along the lines of "just because we see X does it mean we should do X" (cause and effect argument) . That totally misrepresents the claim, the claim is simply showing that homosexual behavior is seen all throughout nature. Just nipping that in the bud. If someone can't be honest about the argument presented to them they are not being honest with themselves.
If your argument is on the grounds of evolution that has been addressed too. Plenty of scholarly articles note the social structure of mammals benefiting from homosexual behavior within the group, things like increasing reproduction success in females or reducing competition within a group of offspring allowing others that share similar gene pools a better chance at finding mates while still allowing for a larger group for social support.
It also is a slippery slope to polygamy and incest and other perversions.
Your argument is a slippery slope. We draw lines at logical places all the time, why not here? Lets look at the polygamy claim, since no one else can marry more than one person no one is being discriminated against. Incest, same as polygamy. The other perversions bit will either fall in the same category as above category or fall to an issue of consent and whether someone (or thing) can give consent or not.
TLDR? Well there is your problem, you have your fingers in your ears and are refusing to look at your ideas objectively.
Aside from the issue of cherry picking only portions of old testament you agree with (I am just going to assume that you don't condone slavery or have issues with mixed fabrics etc.) you are mixing this with new testament. But that's not the real issue here, the issue is you are arguing that a governing body should make laws respecting a religion. If you live in the states I see this as problematic.
1. That is ceremonial and civil law of the old testament for the government of Israel and doesn't apply to modern day believers.
2. Why shouldn't religious laws govern a nation.
This one is a two parter, first off there is no reputable source that claims homosexuals live shorter spans than any other sexuality. The research that backs your claim was conducted by Paul Cameron of the family Research Institute and has been refuted due to HUGE methodological errors. For instance demographers have noted the numbers to be highly non representative of the homosexual population as Cameron's selection method is deeply flawed.
The second part of your claim is about health risks and you cite HIV/AIDS as your support. Well newsflash....straight people have HIV/AIDS too. Here is a kicker though, according to the Center for Disease Control homosexual women have less instances of STDs (including HIV) than heterosexual men and women. If your measure of this being bad is STD's then homosexual women must be left out of the equation to arrive at the same conclusion you did. Doesn't that sound like a terrible methodology? For instance if an alien race excluded all women on the planet they would conclude that all homo sapiens have a penis or if they excluded men they would assume all homo sapiens give birth. Clearly this is not an objective measure.
Straight people do have it best almost all have had premarital sex and other perversions and the rest are just objects of God's wrath chosen for his pleasure.
Your argument is a slippery slope. We draw lines at logical places all the time, why not here? Lets look at the polygamy claim, since no one else can marry more than one person no one is being discriminated against. Incest, same as polygamy. The other perversions bit will either fall in the same category as above category or fall to an issue of consent and whether someone (or thing) can give consent or not.
TLDR? Well there is your problem, you have your fingers in your ears and are refusing to look at your ideas objectively.
What is the problem with incest then it is "natural". They can "consent".
You are debating the legality of homosexual marriage. As such your number 1 does not apply. Lets skip to number 2 where your stance actually hits its first hurdle based on legality.
2. Why shouldn't religious laws govern a nation
In a nation that accepts people of all faiths and ethnicity laws have been provided to protect those people and their beliefs from being imposed on others of different backgrounds in positions of power (assuming you live in the USA). In the US there is to be no law respecting one religion over another. This is the reality you are currently living in, if you wish for it to change you need to make your case of why it should change.
Are you making an argument that allows you to impose your religious beliefs over others respecting the civil liberties of one group above all others? Are you claiming some people should have more worth based on their beliefs than others?
Straight people do have it best almost all have had premarital sex and other perversions and the rest are just objects of God's wrath chosen for his pleasure.
This is just one big petition of principle. I already know how you feel about this subject, I am questioning how you think this should reflect in the legality of the issue as well as the validity of your claims. I already know why you think these things are perversions, but see #2 above. You will be hard pressed to make a case on homosexuality being a 'perversion' based on secular reasoning and sciences. You are making a case against the sexuality being against your religion, not illegal.
Here is an issue I see cropping up between us though. I stated why your measures were inadequate and you just restate your position with no additional measures or even addressing my points. If this is a preview of what is to come in your arguments we may as well be done, you are not arguing you are soap boxing.
What is the problem with incest then it is "natural". They can "consent".
Again you are debating the legality of an issue and I addressed why this would not be an issue. Since no one is allowed to marry within their close kin group no one is being discriminated against by not allowing others to marry their close kin group.
So is women speaking in church, eating ham, tattoos, eating seafood, mixing fabrics, shaving a beard, a woman entering a church after she just had a baby, and premarital sex.
Should we ban all of those things as well?
Homosexuality is unnatural (do you have any links for this?)
the definition of unnatural is: " not existing in nature, made or caused by humankind."
The male bighorn sheep bond through anal intercourse, which ends in ejaculation. If the sheep chooses not to participate, he becomes a social outcast. Bottlenose dolphins, giraffes, killer and gray whales, and a few species of manatees have all-male orgies. Certain species of primates have gay/lesbian sex very often.
Homosexuality is most definitely not an unnatural thing.
Homosexuals die 20 years younger (I don't doubt it, but could you provide a link?)
and smokers die 10 years younger than non-smokers. What's your point? Just because something is bad for someone's health, doesn't mean we can outlaw it. As long as they're aware of the health drawbacks, (which I am sure they are) we have no right to stop them from doing it.
Also, what makes you think that banning gay marriage will help this problem? I hate to break it to you, but pre-marital sex is a thing! they don't have to be married to have sex.
Children work better with a mom and dad(why? Are there studies to prove this?)
Does that mean that divorced couples should not be allowed to raise kids? how about single mothers and fathers? If this is a legitimate excuse, why are gay people the only ones getting targeted?
Also, not to be cliche here, but jesus had two dads and he was raised just fine.
Homosexuals carry lots of diseases (again, any proof?)
So is women speaking in church, eating ham, tattoos, eating seafood, mixing fabrics, shaving a beard, a woman entering a church after she just had a baby, and premarital sex.
Should we ban all of those things as well?
Again that was the ceremonial and civil law of the land of Israel not for modern day Christians.
Expect for Premarital sex.
I also mean that homosexuals on average carry more diseases then the straight population.
"Again that was the ceremonial and civil law of the land of Israel not for modern day Christians."
Its listed in the same text that condemns homosexuality, so is the condemnation of homosexuals ceremonial and civil law of the land of Israel as well? Or are you just picking and choosing what's convenient for you?
"Again that was the ceremonial and civil law of the land of Israel not for modern day Christians."
Its listed in the same text that condemns homosexuality, so is the condemnation of homosexuals ceremonial and civil law of the land of Israel as well? Or are you just picking and choosing what's convenient for you?
The moral laws carry over and Romans 1:26 which is in the new testament is also condemning it.
1.) According to Jesus, all of the Old Testament is still relevant:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." Matthew 5:17 NAB
Other New Testament verses that approve of the Old Testament:
"All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..." 2 Timothy 3:16 NAB
"Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." 2 Peter 20-21 NAB
Jesus criticized the Jews for not killing their disobedient children according to Old Testament law in Mark.7:9-13 "Whoever curses father or mother shall die" Mark 7:10 NAB
2.) I must also point out that if you believe the Bible to be the word of God, then you must see nothing wrong with slavery:
Instructions on how to purchase and treat your slaves:
"However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way." Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT
Instructions on how Hebrew slaves should be treated:
"If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever." Exodus 21:2-6 NLT
Instructions on sex slavery (and on how to sell your own daughter into slavery):
"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment." Exodus 21:7-11 NLT
And if your going to pull the "that was the Old Testament" card, then here are some passages from the New Testament that approve of slavery:
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ." Ephesians 6:5 NLT
"Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them." 1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT
Jesus himself personally approves of beating slaves in this verse:
"The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given." Luke 12:47-48 NLT
First of all, you still didn't provide ANY sources!
that was the ceremonial and civil law of the land of Israel not for modern day Christians.
you can't just cherry-pick which parts of the Bible you want to follow! All of the things that I listed were from Leviticus, the same section that referred to gay marriage.
Expect for Premarital sex.
what makes premarital sex any different than the other things I listed?
I also mean that homosexuals on average carry more diseases then the straight population.
for do homosexuals live 24 years longer use google
for homosexuals getting diseases look at AIDS which runs rampant in the homosexual community 61% of the AIDS community is gay and the rest almost always engage in sex outside of marriage which is clearly condemned in the bible.
As for the homosexuals they are vessels of wrath and talked about in Romans 9:22
1. So what? It also condemns wearing clothing of mixed fabrics and divorce, yet those are legal. Also forgive me if I'm wrong, but we do have something called "separation of Church and State"
2. Well according to science it isn't, homosexuality occurs in other species of animals as well, in fact some societies of the past, such as ancient Greece, encouraged Same-sex relationships. Btw, I'm often told that God exists outside of nature, therefore does that make God unnatural?
3. Interesting, I would like to see your sources, it seems you've made a scientific breakthrough
No, but people who preach religious hate should be sterilized, banned from adopting, and not allowed to get married. It sucks being discriminated against, huh?
Thanks hun. I am trying to be a good person. i just wanting to prove everyone wrong and to prove myself wrong. Ima log out for today, so see ya around. :)
Pure awesomeness. i trie to come out to my mother 3 times and she thinks I am confused. I was thinking "yeah right, that's why I wanna bang Sarah Palin, confused my ass", but I did not have the nerve. :'(
not everybody in a country belivies in this religion so why should a country follow it?
people are not used to change and when they see something different they don't like it and they react the wrong way. The gay couples are not asking for the church to acept them but insted for them to have the right to be who they choose to be and if we go back to Lincoln's speech we see that everybody se supposed to have EQUAL RIGHTS. If it is because of the church is not are job to correct them they will face their concequences afterworth.
Upon adopting it is better for them to live with people that care about them that live with people that mal threat them.
SO but yourself in that position and think about it if you were thoose people would you want it to be legal or would you want it to be illegal just because you are different?
The cost and effort it would take to pass a law prohibiting the marriage of cigarettes simply cannot be justified. It's not like two cigarettes could get their partnership recognized under current laws anyways.
The cost and effort it would take to pass a law prohibiting the marriage of cigarettes simply cannot be justified. It's not like two cigarettes could get their partnership recognized under current laws anyways.
No shit. Really? I had no idea. It must have been a total accident that my example was a parody of that very issue. Seriously, the money and effort that have been invested in the anti-same-sex marriage campaign are sorely misdirected considering the issues that actually need addressed. The push to make homosexual unions illegal is redundant because in every state where it has been attempted the law already excluded same-sex marriages.
No shit. Really? I had no idea. It must have been a total accident that my example was a parody of that very issue. Seriously, the money and effort that have been invested in the anti-same-sex marriage campaign are sorely misdirected considering the issues that actually need addressed. The push to make homosexual unions illegal is redundant because in every state where it has been attempted the law already excluded same-sex marriages.
1. Are you hacking?
2. Homosexuals live 24 years shorter then straights.
What they want legalized is something that the government calls marriage and conveys with it the same rights and responsibilities that are conveyed upon what the government calls marriage between people of opposite sexes.
That is something that can exist and does exist in many places.
It is irrelevant whether gay marriage exists within your definition since what they are asking for does not presuppose your definition.
Same sex marriage should be legal, they are still people! How would you like it if same sex marriage was normal and you weren't allowed to marry the opposite gender even though you truly love them.
This might sound a little old, but I strongly believe that two people who are fond of each other deserve to be with each other.Why does it matter so much to the society whether they are of the same sex or not anyways?A lot more orphaned children might get adopted and they might just get a better future.Think about it!No harm done there.
Restricting gay marriage by law is just plain bullshit.Period.
A government should think really hard before instituting laws that limit the freedom of its people, and it certainly should not violate its own laws to do so. There is simply no need to legislate marriage inequality in this sense. The only possible reason would be of religious origin. And the first amendment makes it very clear the USA is not to be a theocracy, so there we go.
No, it doesn't do anything to anybody without their consent, two adult men or women with the psychological capacity and maturity, of the same species so they are around the same level of intellectual evolution, are agreeing to the implications of their relationship... I think illegalization should only take place is the subject is harmful or breaching of one's freedom.
No it should not be illegal. For one who are you to say who gets marriage. I may not be gay but just because I not that way doesn't mean that I got a right to get in other people lifes. I am for all geting marriage.
Should only men be given the right to vote? Should only white people be considered to be true humans/people? This question is basicly in that category. Homosexuals love like heterosexuals can love, we feel and breathe and exist like people do and to treat us differently because you draw issue with our sexual preference makes me sick. Why should we be denied the right and entitlement to the same marriage that heterosexuals have? Please i beg you give me a legitimate reason? Don't tell me it's unnatural because it's not, don't tell me it's wrong because it's not! If you say it is then you say love and respect is wrong and that only makes you unnatural. Fair enough if religion doesn't want to allow it but i see no legal reason for why not. Heck, i don't see why there can't be a branch of religions that allow it, how would it be worse than say the westboro baptist church or sharia law?
