CreateDebate


Debate Info

437
185
Yes No
Debate Score:622
Arguments:255
Total Votes:766
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes (184)
 
 No (93)

Debate Creator

pellhum(58) pic



Should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?

Gay marrige, seems strange to us but to the gays its normal. why shouldn't it be its a life dicission just like eating apound of choclate each say or having moderations of fruit and vegitables. we try to force being stright on americans and say its a sin but i dissagree. People say it is a sickness and just because the bible says that its a sin and its wrong that it atomatically is. Voice your opinion and help me undersatn why they dont get the same rights as everyone else didn't we do this with other races thus racist! Its the same descrimination and its wrong. this could lead to somthing bigger like onother holocaust ( i doubt it but could be true) i just find it appoling!!

Yes

Side Score: 437
VS.

No

Side Score: 185
15 points

OK, Does anyone edit anymore? "marrige" "State" come on, for such a serious question, one would expect care and concern in order to discern the truth.

First: Marriage is, in all of the truest sense, a contract between two individuals. A legal document does not ensure that the agreement will be forever upheld. People fall out of love all of the time. Why does sexual orientation, in the land of the free, change the definition of a contract? Marriage is a contract; why else would the courts be bogged down by disputes of property, wealth, and future holdings?

Second: When two people want to have a contract with each other, why should everyone else care about the purpose of that contract or the sexual orientation of the contractual partners? We, in the U.S.A. look away when companies contract each other to form conglomerates. Why do we care so much about people in love that we would show our prejudices?

Third: The human spirit should be without bonds. Let individuals be individuals. An atmosphere of growth will yield much more than the atmosphere of "let's wait and see".

If people want to bind themselves to a legal document, let them. Don't make it an issue of orientation because the end result is the same effect.

Side: yes
3 points

There are people in this general debate who kinda believe that if we allow same-sex marital coupling, then:

Paedagamy (Paedophilic marriage)

Kids will be allowed to marry other kids.

Zoophyligamy (Zoophilic marriage)

Animals will also get to marry

Necragamy (Necrophilic marriage)

And somehow the dead will start demanding civil rights...

Side: yes
simsoy(10) Disputed
3 points

but we already have straight marriage! By that means because you support Straight marriage, then you must also support:

Paedagamy

Zoophuligamy

Necragamy

Homosexual marriage

(marriages is only and ever only should be between 2 people who love each other and can support each other financially and emotional, that would rule out Paedagamy, Zoophyligamy, Necragamy; you can't prove a Horse loves-loves you)

Side: No
jstantall(178) Disputed
2 points

Kinda believe? If you say marriage is nothing in particular, just a contract, guess what? it's nothing inparticular and it can be applied to any kind of relationship. If I want to marry my cat who are you to say that I can't? The logic to justify gay marriage can be applied to any relationship. And that should be painfully obvious.

Side: No
caged(6) Disputed
0 points

Homosexuality or, gender disorientation is a mental condition. Weather it be environmental, or genetic, because someone feels as if a specific kind of behavior is "natural" does not make it so. I know I am going to get some blowback from people saying it was removed from the DSM and you are right, however the facts show that this was done under extreme political pressure and not because doctors dont believe that it is in fact a condition.

You would not help a schizophrenic individual by giving them two cups of tea, one for them and one for their imaginary friend, so why then would you support two men or women getting married? This is what I dont understand. Can homosexuality be treated, maybe. Can it be studied, not objectively as Homosexuals dont want to be fixed they want to be accepted which I completely understand. However, you can accept the behavior without condoning it and this is what America is saying. Yes, you are free to do what you want, but we do not recognize it as being healthy and no, we will not legitimize it by recognizing it through one of our most wildly held social traditions. I believe society as a whole has this right and its important that we do.

On a separate note, I dont think the state should have anything to do with making laws with regards to marriage or recognizing them, however I stand by my original premise that at least attempting to correct the behavior is better than condoning it.

Side: No
jstantall(178) Disputed
3 points

Thanks for making my point. Your argument is a good example of trying to define marriage. You said "Marriage is a contract" it may be true that most marriages have some form of a contract but that is just a formality and not the marriage. A contract defines the parameters of something that exist independent of the contract; it doesn't make the thing. See this is were we get into trouble, when we try to define the nature of something. Because the nature of the object is defined by itself, not the subject. For example lets say I wanted to define you and I said; ostdrauka99 is a long haired cat of about 20lbs and you would reply; no I'm not, I'm a.... See I would do better in describing you as you actually are. So it is with marriage, we need to describe it as it actually is, not what we think it is. And historically speaking marriage has almost always been seen has the joining of male and female for procreation. Which leads us to the next question.

"When two people want to have a contract with each other, why should everyone else care about the purpose of that contract or the sexual orientation of the contractual partners?"

In the case of marriage it's because they normally produce kids. Why does that matter to the state? consider the following report; http://www.healthymarriageinfo.org/docs/ costofdivorce.pdf

So yes, this type of relationship is of serious concern for government and they would be wise to do everything they can to support and encourage it. And primarily because marriages produce the next generation.

You said" The human spirit should be without bonds" this pernicious little lie has been the root of all kinds of human evil, not to mention the question of this debate. People doing what ever they want without restraint is anarchy and detrimental to society, it's why we have laws. If we are going to flourish some restraint is necessary. But let me ask you, what is more creative and productive, the undisciplined mind or the disciplined mind? Before you respond let me remind you of your education that allows you to read and write, with out which you couldn't have this debate.

Final thought. You said "Don't make it an issue of orientation because the end result is the same effect." Heterosexual couples typically reproduce and homosexual couples never do. How is that the same effect and how does this avoid being a contradiction since you say "A" is the same as "non-A"

Side: No
Avedomni(78) Disputed
8 points

See this is were we get into trouble, when we try to define the nature of something. Because the nature of the object is defined by itself, not the subject.

This is true, but while the nature of an object may be objective, the definition of a word is very much a matter for the subject.

For example lets say I wanted to define you and I said; ostdrauka99 is a long haired cat of about 20lbs and you would reply; no I'm not, I'm a.... See I would do better in describing you as you actually are. So it is with marriage, we need to describe it as it actually is, not what we think it is.

You're conflating defining and describing. An object is described, while a word is defined. For an object, it is possible to ascertain by inspection whether or not a given description matches the object. For a word, however, it is necessary to establish the word's definition as an axiom—there is no manner in which is can be deduced.

What you're doing here is describing a specific marriage (or collection of marriages; possibly even every marriage you've ever encountered) as "a joining of male and female for procreation" and then turning around and declaring that this must be the definition of marriage. But that is no more a valid conclusion than describing a specific animal (or collection of animals; possibly even every animal you've ever encountered) as "a large, greyish thing with a trunk" and then trying to use that as the definition of animal. In fact the most we can say is that if the description is accurate (ie, if the collection of animals are in fact large, greyish things with trunks), then the description establishes a subset of things which are animals. Similarly, given that there are marriages which can be described as "a joining of male and female for procreation", then the most we can say is that this description establishes a subset of things which are marriages. In and of itself this does not rule out the possibility of other things which are marriages.

Now, one is perfectly free to subjectively restrict their definitions to the subset under consideration, as an axiom, but there is nothing intrinsic to the subset which requires this, and nothing which forces others to agree with what amounts to an entirely arbitrary decision on your part. All that you've done in choosing that particular subset is declare that anything else isn't a marriage by your definition, which reveals the debate for what it (like so many others) really is—an argument over whether your arbitrary definition is somehow less arbitrary than anyone else's definition.

Side: yes
Mahollinder(893) Disputed
4 points

In the case of marriage it's because they normally produce kids.

Marriage normally doesn't produce children. Sex does, specifically.

Why does that matter to the state? consider the following report

The report in the PDF file only argues the importance of the institution of marriage to the general welfare of the population. It says absolutely nothing about same-sex coupling or marriage. And it would seem like a good idea to promote the act to increase the influence of marriage throughout the population.

Question: would you make illegal couples that are infertile?

Side: yes
6 points

Guess what? Marriage is a "civil union".

In order to get married, you need a license from a government office. You can't get it from a religious organization. That makes marriage a civil matter.

The meaning of "civil" in this situation is "of or pertaining to civil law". Civil law is "the body of laws of a state or nation regulating ordinary private matters, as distinct from laws regulating criminal, political, or military matters."

One definition of "union" is "the act of uniting or an instance of being united in marriage". As I said, marriage is a civil union.

So people who want gays to be able to form civil unions are in effect supporting gay marriage.

However same-sex couples in marriages, civil unions, or domestic partnerships in the U.S. do not have 1,138 rights, benefits and privileges that a married couple has under federal law.

When African Americans turned to the courts to help protect their constitutional rights, the Supreme Court ruled that racial segregation of any kind deprived African Americans of equal protection. Gay Americans also want the same rights, benefits and protections provided to all other Americans.

Denying gay partners the full benfits otherwise granted to same sex partners is saying that gay individuals and same-sex couples are “second-class citizens” who may, under the law, be treated differently from, and less favorably than, heterosexual individuals or opposite-sex couples.

On this basis, several state courts have decided it was illegal to deny same sex couples the right to marry. So, the question is not "should Gay marrige be legal in the United State of America?" but should we continue to allow the government to continue to act in an illegal way toward same sex couples. Obviously, the answer is "No".

Side: yes
5 points

I think that gay marriage should be legal in america because one its not really hurting anybody, two its just two people that love each other, and three it doesnt need your opinion in anybodies love life.

Side: yes
2 points

People need emotional backup and it doesnt matter if it's with a boy o a girl. And really who's it affecting.

Side: yes
4 points

Why shouldnt it be? The only thing different to traditional marriage is the fact that it's two people of the same sex getting married. I don't believe in all this guff about people calling it a civil union or whatever

Side: yes
2 points

Traditional marriage is one man banging his secretary while his wife stays home and watches soap operas. Eventually, he leaves his wife and kids and marries his secretary. Why do the gays want to destroy that?

Side: Traditional marriage
4 points

I have been in a same sex relationship for 12 yrs and have been legally recognized in New Jersy only by a civil union which has limited benefits in comparison to heterosexual marrige. My partner and I have 2 babies that we love very much. I believe that we should have the same rights as an heterosexual couple.

Same sex couples are allowed to adopt and we are singled out by the US as gay parents and our children are also being discriminated against by NOT giving us the full benefits of marrige. I believe that our children should be recognized as being part of a family. A family is love and who in the hell has the right to say who and what anyone can love. You are taking our right to love away.

The children of same sex families need to feel equal and same sex couples need equality so that we can feel secured as an American Family shoud. We are not asking for anything more than what anyone else has. We are not asking for special privledges. We just want to be treated equally.

Our children have the right to have a sence of belonging without any predjudices. We pay taxes, we are your Doctors, teachers , police officers, servicemen, freinds, neighbors, brothers, sisters, Mothers, Fathers, Bankers, and some of us are even in the military protecting this country!!! We are everywhere and we are not going away. We are only coming out stronger and in more numbers. Hiding in the closet is not an option any longer!

We as Americans desearve equality!!!!

I have one question: If we are not able to recieve full equal benefits of marrige(ie.. survivor benefits), would it be correct to say that we should be exempt from paying taxes since this does not benefit the gay communtiy. I mean come on, why should we pay into social security if we are not able to cash in on our full benefits? Mabey we should get a tax break?? i guess our gay money is good enough to take but we, as gay americans are not worthy to have it work for us when we need it!!!

The worst thing about this is that the federal government is judging us and if I remeber correctly, GOD is the only one to judge me! Rememeber , GOD made us equal and in his vision.

Side: yes
jstantall(178) Disputed
0 points

We just want to be treated equally.

But your not the same kind of a relationship, isn't that why you refer to yourself as a "same sex relationship" and not a heterosexual marriage? Aren't you the one and not the other?

Our children have the right to have a sense of belonging without any prejudices

You are the one who denied them that by your choice, not us. Are you not comfortable with choice you made? Our choices have consequences. If you made the choice I would assume you thought through the ramifications and were willing to accept the consequences. Otherwise you would have chosen differently. Why then must we accept the consequences for you? It's your choice not ours.

GOD made us equal and in his vision.

Not quite, in one sense He did and in one sense He didn't. We know that due to the fact we are all different, some people are just smarter than others. He did however create us all in His Image, But that image has been shattered and distorted by sin. The fact that homosexuality doesn't show up till after the fall ought to tell us something. And don't tell me there was no fall because I see the effects of it every day and I battle against my own inner corruption daily.

Ephesians 2

By Grace Through Faith

And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins, in which you once walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now works in the sons of disobedience, among whom also we all once conducted ourselves in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, just as the others.

But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.

Side: No
4 points

I found this to be amusing,..Early man was called Homo Erectus....not hetro erectus!

Side: yes
4 points

I believe that gay marriage should be legal. Marriage is a beautiful thing and i don't see why two people of the same sex should not be allowed to get married.

Side: yes
4 points

of course who am i to judge people. its their choice and isnt effecting anyone else. i mean lets say when a girl was young a man did something bad to her and after that she was afraid to be with another guy. so what...shes never supposed to be happy again with someone because we think its not "normal" or whatever. i mean we are so used to what is natural we forget that the normal way of living isnt the only way of living.

Side: yes
3 points

Yes of course it should

No majority ever has the right to decide the life of a minority, which does no harm to anyone

It was that logic, which cause the slave trade and while you still decide how others should live then they are slaves

"Why don't you try and use the art of persuasion to convince my that a lifestyle that causes early death (@45yrs of age) high rates of infectious diseases, depression and suicide is really a good thing. And that it is some how the more loving thing to do to let someone destroy their life."

- Find one single gay person over 45 should be impossible then?

- straight people can catch those same diseases, they just have better access to healthcare without being discriminated against

- depression and suicide again cause by discrimination and the struggle to accept yourself as different in a world with so many biggots and small minded people

- The above quote was wrote by a clearly retarded person who would have owned a slave, voted against womens and black peoples rights and can't see that being gay is not a disease, it is natural and present in over 500 species

Gay marriage would not and cannot harm straight marriage

It is proven that gay marriages are more stable and that the most suitable family environment is actualy with two lesbian mothers

If anything harms marriage it is straight people like britney spears and people who pass their prejudice onto their kids

Side: yes
3 points

if you were gay you might want to get hitched and besides what gives anyone the right to tell anyone else what to do when it comes to something as personal as that

P.S. not homosexual, but supportive

Side: yes
3 points

I believe Gay's should be able to marry I'm not gay... However I have a guy that I've been with for over 2 yrs that I would do or give anything for. I see that as an example... if someone were to tell me that this man I spend my time with everyday and plan to raise a family with in the future was illegal... I would riot honestly if any GOOD human being knows what its like to absolutely love someone, then you also know what its like to imagine them being torn away from your arms and how much it hurts.

If honestly you can't let two people love one another then what gives YOU the right to even love someone?!

I don't want to hear the "Well it says in the bible!..." No... shut up just stop right there because I've read the bible and I've read the commandments NOT one single time did it mention that two people of the same sex could not love one another! If you think its the work of the devil then SHAME SHAME SHAME... on you. Because I do know that in the bible it DOES state as a commandment even... THOU SHALL NOT JUDGE! If that's all you can do with your life is tell someone they don't have the right to love then it is you that will judged by god himself and if you don't believe in god. Then I'm sorry you have nothing to believe in but picking on others to make your life complete only makes you lower then the dirt on the ground.

Side: yes
3 points

In this country we claim to be the land of a free people, does it say land of the free for only all straight people? No it doesn't if we are a land of free people shouldn't people have a choice to love and marry to whom they wish to? how do we have have the right to tell people who they can marry? does being gay make you less of a American? Last time i checked no. If two males want to marry, or if two females wish to marry in this land of the ''free'' then whom are we to tell then no. and in all reality is it any of our business what two adults do with there love life?

Side: yes
3 points

I agree with this statement! It's true... we are adults and some of you may not want to see two men hold hands but honestly I think it gross to watch a man and a women suck face in public. I don't like watching public affection both gay and straight. So if any of you are just saying that gays have no right to be married only cause you're afraid to see them kiss... do what I do when I see a man and a women make out! Ignore it and go about business were grown adults and the only thing majority of adults have to say is "Oh My God two people kissing!" Grow up act your age and move on!

Side: yes
3 points

I totally agree . It's just descrimination! Everyone has his or her own right to do whatever he/she wants to do. I think people are just followers these days if you here one person say " No , being gay is wrong... blah blah" than you automatically agree with them. People just need to grow up and understand you cant get rid of life! You cant get ride of someones right ! you cant get rid of gays ! There humans just like everyone else and if they want be with someone of the same sex than so be it.. It has nothing to do with you. Right? ( Let them do them , and you do you)

Side: yes
3 points

Yes, gay marriage should be legal. Civil unions are not the same as marriage and despite what everyone tries to make you think, those unions don't give you the same rights and privelages. The only thing keeping them from marrying are some long dead morals from hundreds of years ago. You know, the same morals that kept women and blacks from having any power in this country as well.

Side: yes
3 points

Ancient Egypt: A tomb of a same sex gay married couple Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep was discovered in 1964 in the necropolis of Saqqara, Egypt. The tomb dates to the Fifth Dynasty (circa 2,500 BCE), and shows that homosexual marriages date back over 4 millennia!

Roman Catholic Church: A recent book by Yale Historian John Boswell demonstrates that Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches both sanctioned and sanctified unions between partners of the same sex, until modern times. The churches used ceremonies which were very similar to conventional heterosexual ceremonies. 6

Other countries: Same-sex, long-term relationships have been publicly acknowledged in ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome, as well as Australia, Europe, India, Native America in more modern times. 7 However, they have not necessarily been called marriages."------ religioustolerance.org...P.S I myself am not "religious"

Supporting Evidence: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_mar3.htm (www.religioustolerance.org)
Side: yes
3 points

If you believe in God and use him in your argument then you believe clearly that you are inbred - and that can only strengthen your biggoted argument

We will have gay marriage, with each new generation it gets closer as the old prejudices die off a little with the old biggots who pass them to their children

We will win, its just a matter of time until you die and your kids make us legally equal

Side: yes
jstantall(178) Disputed
0 points

Trouble is that you can't reproduce. You're a dying breed. Good luck on changing human nature, it has remained unchanged after thousands of years. But let say you do "win" what then? Your civilization goes into negative population growth and dies out, just like every society before it. And the cycle begins again. People respond to tragedy by becoming conservative, gain peace, get comfortable, get lazy, get liberal and die off. Then repeat. That's human history in a nut shell and there is nothing new under the sun, Same old problem with new faces looking at it. If you think this question is a new one, think again. We are locked in a struggle of utter futility. Have fun in your march towards suicide, I've found the door.

Side: No
Tigra07 Disputed
3 points

We can reproduce and we do

The fact of population is that there are currently too many people for the Earth's resources to handle

Gay people represent higher adoption rates to clean up the mess of straight people, to lower the population of people having children they cant care for

Gay people have been around since the times of the Romans and will continue to exist in the future

As it is now countries like the UK, Portugal, Spain and even Pakistan have or are overtaking America on Gay rights

The Americans didn't act on Womens rights until others challenged them to

They didn't act on slavery until challenged

And they won't act on Gay rights now even though there are many gay women and black people challenging them

Gay people pay taxes, they are entitled to the same rights

Side: yes
3 points

Yes, it should be legal.

- Homosexuality is a natural phenomenon; it's just that you're attracted more to the people of the same sex.

- Everyone has the right to be happy, so they deserve the things in which they find their happiness.

- On one hand we talk of equality, and on the other depriving homosexuals from it. Isn't it kind of ironical? I mean, so what if they're of the same sex? Aren't they entitled to love each other?

- No religious books (as far as I know) have ridiculed the whole notion of homosexuality. On the other hand, all of them have a common theme, that is, accepting people as they are, loving them as they are, and that everyone deserves to be happy.

- It has already been legalized in many countries. There are records of successful gay marriages; it isn't that only heterosexual marriages are successful.

Side: Yes
3 points

Myself i think it is disgusting, but i do not have a problem with it being legal. People can do what they want.

Side: yes
2 points

y not!?!?!!?! marriage makes a link between two people. let it be a man and a woman. a man and a man etc etc. if two males are happy to be together then y not make them happy. y should we be a hurdle. this is a natural phenomenon and if such a thing happens we as humans shoulf support them. its none of our business!!

Side: yes
jstantall(178) Disputed
0 points

Yeah, Oil and toxic waste spills occur in nature to and if such a thing happens we as humans should support it.

yeah, let it be a man and a woman. a man and a man, a man and 10 women, a women and 10 men, A man and a boy, a man and the neighbors little girl. A man and 10 little girls. A man like Warren Jeffs. A man and what ever he wants, 10 men and what ever they want, 10 women and what ever they want. Heck let's all just do what we want and we'll all be happy, Yeah! Oh wait! that's anarchy and in anarchy nobody gets what they want and nobody is happy, except the guy with the biggest gun. Darn I guess we do have to give up lesser freedoms to gain greater ones. Darn, to have real liberty I need to give up certain freedoms for the greater good in order that I might live in peace.

A wise man once said: before you take down a fence you ought to find out why it was put up in the first place.

Or as Edmund Burke (1729-1797) said, "Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it."

I hope you don't think this is the first time in human history that a society has wrestled with this question. They have indeed and they put up fences for some really good reasons. You would do well to find them out

Supporting Evidence: Two Kinds of Freedom (www.str.org)
Side: No
2 points

its their choice not the states. so what im bisexual myself

Side: yes
2 points

I personally dont agree with the gay marriage situation but i do believe that this is a free country and they have as much of a right to get married as any straight couple. They can love each other just as much as a straight couple. Everyone has a right to their own opinion and beliefs. We as a country should not have the right to tell someone if they can get married or not just because of the way someone lives.

Side: yes
2 points

Yes, but it should be spelled correctly.

Committed relationships make a society stronger and there is no reason to treat them differently just because they are between two people of teh same sex, or two people who are relatives, or more than two people.

Legalize all forms of marriage between consenting adults.

Side: yes
2 points

Yes, absolutely. Just like incestuous marriage and polygamous marriage.

Side: yes
2 points

In my opinion, marriage is between a man and a woman. If we are talking about marriage in the sense of a union recognized by the church, then absolutely not. A marriage in the church is for a man and a woman ONLY. HOWEVER! I do think that if two men, or two women want to be recognized legally as a couple, then they ought to have the right to a civil union. They would be legally recognized as married, but not recognized by the church. If they wanted to have a "ceremony" of sorts, that's fine, it just won't be recognized by the church. Legal marriage: yes. Holy marriage: no.

Side: yes
2 points

Who are we to prevent people from doing what they want to do when it has no serious affect on us?

Side: yes
NVYN(289) Disputed
1 point

Changing the definition of marriage effecting our legal system and society's view of marriage does have serious effects on us. If you view marriage as an important and serious institution and not something you would enter lightly without thought, then it's very important.

.

I suspect that the high rate of divorce is reflective of the light attitude people have of marriage today. It's nothing to be proud of, the goal should be to reverse this trend.

Side: No
2 points

Yes whats so wrong about gays getting married? I have two friends that are agy and i think its kinda cute.... sooo

Side: yes
2 points

It should be legal because it is indeed a life decision. "what is straight? a line can be straight, a road can be straight, but the human heart, oh no, its as curvy as a road curving through the mountains"

GAY PEOPLE ARE PEOPLE TOO!!! SO BACK OFF!!!

Side: No
2 points

That community should be having the same rights as we do. Why ban it because you don't like who they love?

Side: yes
2 points

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Marriage is both an expression of freedom of speech and religion. By denying homosexuals the right to marry, the United States in violation of the First Amendment. Also, for those who claim it is against the Christian faith: If God was the creator off all, then why did he create gays?

Side: yes
2 points

ALL PEOPLE SHOULD GET TO BE HAPPY IN EVERY WAY AND GET MARRIED TO WHO THEY WANT THE GOVERNMENT ISN'T OUR MOMMA OR DAD HELL LETS START A RIOT WHERE WE LIVE AND LETS SEE THEM TRY TO BREAK DOWN OUR HOPE AND DREAMS I SAY "FUCK THE FREE WORLD" (EMINME, 8 MILE) LETS GO WE ARE ALL People.Why is it even illegal??? (sorry if spelling is wrong i have a learning disability) look at this if we are gay the baby rate doesn't go up as much as it does when a man and women do it, and to all you homophobes grow up your not gonna get germs

Side: Yes
2 points

It is our right! We the people of the United States! There is nothing in the constitution about gay marriage, so we can do it. Then Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, banning all gay marriages. Republican Chris Christie of New Jersey (A blue state), vetoed that would have allowed gay marriage and will let the people vote in December. On another note, it is now fine in Maryland, N.H., N.Y, and after Prop. 8 was banned, in California.

Side: Yes
2 points

Yes!!

People have no control over who they fall in love with, male or female. It is wrong for gay marriage to be illegal because it's like trying o control people's feelings and feelings can't be controlled.

Sure, many Christians find it wrong, but everyone has the freedom of choice; to choose what they want, whether it's being gay or not.

Side: Yes
2 points

I was going to say that this is illegal. But this is America, free country. So it's a yes.

Side: Yes
1 point

i think it should be legal because you cant stop who someone loves if they love each other than let them be together. you wouldn't like it if people told you who you cant love. i think its very rude of those who wont stand up for people who want love just like you straight people. all you who don't like gays then stop opening your legs and having gay kids.thats all i have to say(;

Side: Yes
1 point

Arent we supposed to be a free country?? love is all the same.. it doesnt matter if you like someone the same gender as you... Honestly if they are happy together why try and break them apart?? and honestly if you dont fucking like it... well dont marry someone the same gender as you... dont take away someone elses right just because you dont like it... what if the government says smoking cigarettes is illegal?? Well im pretty sure 1/2 the us would would try to make it illegal while the other half said yes yes yes... So think about it for a minuet before you take away someone elses rights....

Side: Yes
1 point

This topic gets me so worked up. Let me try to separate my thoughts.

Gays: Hey, guess what? They are humans! And in America, that means marriage is a right for them! Why? Because we have this thing here called "freedom"!

I always ask why people are against it. I always get these four reasons. All of which I have answers to, that prove you wrong.

1) JESUS! Oh praise The Lord!

My answer: Oh so I take it you've read the Bible? (Whole other argument, I'll skip this part.) God loves all of his children, Christians. Gays including. Not impressed? Alright. Furthermore, (this may be a surprise,) NOT EVERYONE REVOLVES AROUND YOUR BOOK! So that is no reason to refuse homosexuals their right of marriage.

2) It's unnatural.

My answer: Oh, is it? I assume you haven't studied, because, yes, it is. There are gay fish, mice, deer, snakes, antelope, elk, dogs, cats, rats, birds, hippos, alligators, crocodiles, hamsters, and, if they existed, unicorns. Need I continue?

3) ...Okay... Oh! THEY CAN'T REPRODUCE!

My answer: This is one of my absolute favorites. So they shouldn't get married because of that? Alright. Let's make marriage illegal if you can't reproduce. So, yes, that includes you silly people, who are incapable of getting pregnant or are incapable of getting someone pregnant. End of story. And most people aren't gay anyway, so who cares? The world is so veer populated that China already has a law against multiple children. ALSO, some people don't even want a child or children.

4) It makes me uncomfortable though!

My answer: They aren't having sex in front of you! Get over it. It isn't your business.

[Same Love by Macklemore & Ryan Lewis. Listen to that song. It's perfect. My two favorite parts

1) America the brave still fears what we don't know.

2) When everybody is more comfortable remaining voiceless rather than fighting for humans who have had their rights stolen.]

I'm Hannah Michelle Donk on Facebook. If you want to continue an argument , message me. I love arguments. (:

Side: Yes
1 point

Adding onto my argument from earlier:

Something I've noticed multiple times on this debate is that marriage is meant for a man and woman.

Do you think that it's fair that a drunk man and woman can get married within an hour at Las Vegas, but two men or women who have been together for years and have a true love for one another cant get married at all? Because I don't. Love is love, whether its a man and a woman or not.

Marriage should not be judged upon the gender of those entering its bond, but by the strength of their love for one another. If the average man and woman loved each other as much as the average practically-married couples, I guarantee divorce rates would be a fraction of what they are now. If you have a problem with anything to do with love, have a problem with marriage between two people who do not love each other.

Side: Yes
1 point

Yes, it should. Love is between 2 people. It shouldnt matter what the gender is or what gender they want to marry. Whats so wrong about it? Put yourself in their shoes wouldnt you want gay marriage to be allowed to so you can marry the one you love?

Side: Yes
1 point

Yes because being gay isn't a choice and someone shouldn't be punished so harshly for something that they can't help, decide, or change.

Side: Yes
1 point

Yes, every person is equal and has the same rights. It has to be legal

Side: Yes
1 point

If the tables turned on you that straight people are evil get in your head that,who you wanna be with is your choice,not the other person.

Side: Yes

Absolutely! Denying Gays to marry is un-American. Gays should be entitled to marry.

Side: Yes

It is now 2015 and the Supreme Court has declared Gay Marriage to be the law of the land.

Side: Yes

Gay people are already allowed to marry.... granted that they are only allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex, but still, they are allowed to marry. There's no need to modify the law ;)

Side: No
hmicciche(660) Disputed
3 points

What a silly old argument. "Gay people have equal opportunity to marry...to a member of the opposite sex."

Here is an idea. Since you like equality so much, let's make it illegal for you to marry the person you love and only legal to marry who we say you can. Ya, lets give you the same "equal opportunity to marriage" as you want to give to gay people.

Sound like a plan?

Side: yes

Yeah. I'll sign up for that. I don't need a piece of paper to define my happiness. ;)

Side: yes
ds229(29) Clarified
1 point

I think he was joking :P annnnnnnnnddddddddddd char limit

Side: Yes
1 point

Technically "Gay Marriage" doesn't exist. The people defined marriage as between a man and a woman. [prop 8]

I don't see why they can't make their own civil unions.

My stance has nothing to do with religion because I believe in separation of church and state. I'm just saying that marriage is our thing and they should get there own thing.

"we try to force being stright on americans and say its a sin"

Who is "we"? Of course there are crazy people in the streets with stupid signs. Don't let then tarnish your view of straight Christian America.

Side: technically no
10 points

Actually gay marriage exists in a number of states [see my picture for exactly how many]. Prop 8 was only in California.

As far as civil unions, I think it's a good first step (many states don't recognize any union between homosexuals) but separate but equal, is inherently unequal, and marriage is a fundamental right (this isn't my opinion, but was decided unanimously by the supreme court).

I am very glad though that you decided to keep religion out of the equation.

Side: yes
JakeJ(3255) Disputed
1 point

Hi, haven't seen you in a while.

"separate but equal, is inherently unequal"

That's like saying: "1+1=2, inherently is wrong because people in the past where bad at math."

Side: technically no
Kinda(1649) Disputed
1 point

Gay people have equal oppurtunity to marriage.

Everybody in the country above a certain age has the exact same equality when it comes to marriage. Legally.

Side: No
hmicciche(660) Disputed
6 points

Guess what? Marriage is a "civil union".

In order to get married, you need a license from a government office. You can't get it from a religious organization. That makes marriage a civil matter.

The meaning of "civil" in this situation is "of or pertaining to civil law". Civil law is "the body of laws of a state or nation regulating ordinary private matters, as distinct from laws regulating criminal, political, or military matters."

One definition of "union" is "the act of uniting or an instance of being united in marriage". As I said, marriage is a civil union.

Side: yes
hmicciche(660) Disputed
4 points

"marriage is our thing and they should get there own thing."

Marriage, permitted by a license from the goverment...

Marriage which confers upon its participants over 1,000 federal benefits...

is who's thing?

Side: yes
hmicciche(660) Disputed
4 points

"Technically "Gay Marriage" doesn't exist."

Technically "Gay Marriage" does exist -- in many countries in the world and several states in the United States. Need me to name them all for you?

Side: yes
shaneyam99(112) Disputed
1 point

your qoute does not make since to me "we try to force being stright on americans and say its a sin" because it sound to me as if your saying being straight is the sin and did you actually see a sign that said this? i am thinking that you took a qoute and made it different and if thats the case that just makes you crazy for trying to impress upon us a qoute that implies your veiws that does not exist. its like laughing at your own jokes

Side: yes
YosefLevi(15) Disputed
1 point

Gay people should get their own thing? I agree. In support, can anyone provide a very good reason as to why black people should have gotten their own kind of marriage? That is also what you liberals would call an "arbitrary" or "capricious" distinction.

Quite simply people of different races do not get together and they should "get their own thing". There's nothing wrong with the name Mixed Union when they are given the same legal entitlements as marriage (pure-race unions, or clean-marriages, of better defined as those marriages which are in keeping with our honourable forefathers of America).

Marriage is a precious institution of our society and only recently in the history of the US has the mixing of races within this great institution been permitted (research yourself how liberal and "new" this Mixed Union concept is). The other Great nations of the past also did not permit such mixings; even S. American nations (which do not count as one of those capital-G "Great" nations) until recently made explicit laws making sure that those Mixers would GET THEIR OWN THING instead of muddying up the definition of marriage. As other people later put it, and quite logically put it, 1+1 IS NOT 3, IT'S 2. THE ANSWER IS 2. Though, of course, one would argue the real answer is to this problem is 42... anyone with me?

1 Latino + 1 Pure Aryan = DOES NOT MAKETH A MARRIAGE; it makes it a Mixed Union entitled to all the same legal protections as marriage. We do make this extremely precious and important distinction because nowadays our dictionaries are getting muddied with upstart liberal ideas (my god, they want to redefine sexuality and say that men have sex with men... and the women, the pure women as well! it's just inconceivable). For the sacred, time-honored tradition of protecting our dictionaries, we make that important legal distinction.

Yes, that's exactly why we are so passionate about arguing for the non-arbitrary distinction between real marriage and Mixed Unions. We are concerned that 1+1 is not 3, and we are also concerned about the muddying of our dictionaries. And since Mixed Unions have the same legal entitlements as real marriages, my lawyer told me that it does not constitute discrimination and that those liberals are likely to fail at a challenge in the courts. Suckers! Shoulda hired better lawyers, you Mixers!

Oh wait, we're talking about those gay people. Yeah, suckers, you Civil Unioners. I won't call you by your real name, but you know what name I'm thinking for you when I think of you... you non-marriage Unioners!

Separate but equal is just as equal as surely as 2 = 2 or x = x.

btw, with more convincing logic, if a = b and b = x, then a = x. See? Different, yet equal. wow. just wow.

Side: yes
JakeJ(3255) Disputed
1 point

"That is also what you liberals would call an "arbitrary" or "capricious" distinction."

What? I'm not a liberal.

"can anyone provide a very good reason as to why black people should have gotten their own kind of marriage?"

Because the original definition of marriage has nothing to do with race. Gender? Yes. Race? no.

Side: technically no
abcd1234(7) Clarified
1 point

"straight christian america" ? are you freaking kidding me? marriage isnt something only some people deserve its a right and everybody deserves equal rights! they dont choose to be gay, like you dont choose to be straight, or you dont choose your gender, or race, but why does it matter how you were born just because of your gender or skin color or sexuality doesnt mean you should be treated any differently, the decleration of independence says "every man is created equal" which means that everyone is equal

Side: Yes
1 point

How do you make legal a fiction? There is no such thing as a gay marriage. If your gay and you make pledges to each other, that's not marriage. Marriage is something in particular. When we say "that's marriage" we are being descriptive, we are describing something we observe. What we are not doing is defining it. It's definition is inherent in the type of relationship it is. Mine or anybody elses definition doesn't change the reality of the thing observed.

As a mathematical formula it would look like this: 1+1 is 2 we would be wrong to say that 1+2 is also 2 Our saying that the two equations are the same doesn't make them the same. So let's change the symbols in our equation and see if it makes sense; male+female=marriage and male+male=marriage. The values in the equation aren't interchangeable. So you see that we can't say that different combinations equal the same thing. It's the differences that, well, make them different.

A gay relationship is not the same thing as a heterosexual relationship. That ought to be obvious to anyone, that's why we give them different names.

Now if your gay and you want to commit yourself to the other person, fine, by all means do it. But don't try say that relationship is the same as another type of relationship when it's clearly not. And yes I know that you love the other person and so does the heterosexual couple. So I would agree that is a shared trait. But it is the object of that love that makes all the difference. One loves someone of the same sex, the other doesn't. That's a difference.

Now to the legality question. People form all kinds of relationship that the government never gets involved with. What interest does the state have in a homosexual relationship? Why should they get involved? As far as I can see the state has no compelling interest in these types of relationships.

So in my estimation, to answer the question of the debate, The government should remain neutral on this issue because it has no reason to do otherwise.

I've include a link to an article that elaborates much more on this issue than I have in my brief treatment of it.

Supporting Evidence: Same-Sex Marriage Challenges and Responses (www.str.org)
Side: No
jessald(1915) Disputed
6 points

What a load of pseudo-intellectual crapola.

Marriage is just a word. It means whatever society decides it means. Currently it refers to a special kind of relationship between a man and a woman. We should legally expand that definition to show acceptance of homosexual love. By failing to do so, we are collectively deriding gay love as unworthy, and this is a disgusting thing to do.

(btw, your link is broken.)

Side: yes
caged(6) Disputed
1 point

Words are very powerful Jessald. Try walking into a crowded room and yelling fire, or walk through Watts, Los Angeles and yell out the "n" word.

Homosexuality is an act of gay sex, not gay love. Two men or women can love each other and not engage in gay sex. I have many male friends I have known for a long time that I love very deeply however I am not sexually attracted to them.

Men sexually attracted to other men and vice versa is a type of sexual disorientation. It happens all throughout the world in many different species however humans have the ability to correct behavior as apposed to the animal kingdom which is in some ways what makes us stand out. It can be the result of childhood or adult trauma, genetic hormonal imbalance's, environmental variables, the list is endless.

Forget throwing fuel on the fire, lets start researching the causes of homosexual behavior and find ways to treat the condition instead of pretending like its a matter of choice because to be honest, I dont know any Gay men who would choose to be gay in todays social climate.

Side: No

What a load of pseudo-intellectual crapola. Changing the meaning of the word is NOT going to fix the problem.

Marriage is just a word. It means whatever society decides it means. Expanding it so that the definition shows acceptance of homosexual love will NOT magically make them be accepted by society as a whole. By failing to expand the definition, we are NOT collectively deriding gay love as unworthy. What a load of pseudo-intellectual crapola.

Side: No
jstantall(178) Disputed
-1 points

Marriage is just a word. It means whatever society decides it means.

That's like saying buildings make bricks. It's the other way around. Just like bricks proceed buildings, marriages proceed societies. To put it another way, marriages are what societies are made of just like bricks are what buildings are made of. So it is illogical to say that the thing made defines the thing that made it.

We should legally expand that definition to show acceptance of homosexual love.

Oh I see, you want to use the force of law to make me accept something I find unacceptable. So much for toleration.

Why don't you try and use the art of persuasion to convince my that a lifestyle that causes early death (@45yrs of age) high rates of infectious diseases, depression and suicide is really a good thing. And that it is some how the more loving thing to do to let someone destroy their life.

I'm sorry that's not loving, it's hateful to let someone destroy their life. Even more so to endorse it and encourage them. It's like encouraging a man on the ledge of a building to jump.

You lack moral clarity if you can look at something so destructive and call it good. Do you know what they call someone out of touch with reality? Schizophrenic

Take the time to get educated about what you are endorsing. Below is a link that Nathaniel S. Lehrman, M.D. wrote in The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 10 Number 3 Fall 2005

And just for the record. Homosexuality is not a person, it is a behavior. My comments against homosexuality are directed at the behavior, not the people practicing it. I love those caught in the gay lifestyle and what to see them set free.

And for those in the gay lifestyle. You are not a homosexual, you are a human being.

Supporting Evidence: Homosexuality: Some Neglected Considerations (www.jpands.org)
Side: No
Akulakhan(2973) Disputed
4 points

1(male)+2(female)=3(mairrage) than

1(male)+1(male)=2(female) than

1(male)+1(male)+1(male)=3(mairrage) than

2(female)+2(female)=3(mairrage)+1(male)

So, through your logic, I have detemined that a male whom is married is actually two women.

Please refine your logic. The above is nonsencical.

Side: yes
5 points

Yes, Marriage is more like Person (1) + Person (1) = Married Couple (2). Basic math. After all, we people are all the same.

Side: yes
4 points

That's funny I like that, however you are correct and thanks for making my point and one unintentionally.

Different combinations don't produce the same results, they produce different ones. Which is my point; they are different.

And yes all analogies break down at some point.

Side: yes
Akulakhan(2973) Disputed
4 points

Using your logic, I have also determined that three men can get married because two men are equivalent to one woman.

Side: yes
4 points

OK, it seems my analogy was a little unclear. I probably should have used letters instead of numbers because it seems that some people read into those numbers the values associated with them, which was not my point. It would be better put like this a+b is not the same as a+c. What I was trying to say is that different combinations produce different results, they don't produce the same results. The easiest way to say it would be that two men joined together don't produce the same thing as a man and a woman joined together, they're different.

So my main point is this. Let's say we all vote and make gay marriage legal. Does our vote change the objective reality that their is a difference in the type of relationship. Does the homosexual relationship become a heterosexual relationship and vice versa simply because we voted and said they're equivalent?

Side: No
simsoy(10) Disputed
2 points

there is no such thing as Heterosexual relation ship and homosexual relationship, its all a relationship. Your logic makes no sense. Love = Love, 2 people = 2 people.

Side: yes
3 points

You give the arbitrary definition of man + woman = marriage and say that this is the only possible definition. You could have been more specific and said specific man + specific woman + marriage, and then the argument would have been different specific man + different specific woman cannot equal marrige. Or you could have said same race man + same race woman = marriage and then the argument could have been made that different race man + different race woman cannot equal marrige.

The most logical definition however would be human + human = marriage, and then we don't have silly arguments where you try to use meaningless equations to make your argument seem more valid.

Side: yes
lawnman(1106) Disputed
5 points

The most logical definition however would be human + human = marriage, and then we don't have silly arguments where you try to use meaningless equations to make your argument seem more valid.

You have exposed yourself to a damaging counter argument.

Such as: If marriage is between two humans then two eight year old boys can be married. Or, whatsoever perversion that can be deduced thereby.

(You failed to be specific, and thereby provided very little in the way of the limit of the extension of your definition. But what you submitted is equally as illogical as the definition you countered.)

Side: I could care less
2 points

"As a mathematical formula it would look like this: 1+1 is 2 we would be wrong to say that 1+2 is also 2 Our saying that the two equations are the same doesn't make them the same."

More like 1+2=3, it's more hereto than 1+1. (;

Side: No
lawnman(1106) Disputed
4 points

The mathematical definition of marriage as represented in your bible is:

1+1=1

Adam and Eve are one.

Did you forget?

Side: I could care less
hmicciche(660) Disputed
2 points

As you say, "Marriage is something in particular." Its a legal union requiring a license from a government office, not from a religious organization. That's why gay people are fighting for "equal rights", not "equal rites."

For the government to remain neutral on this issue, they need to stop denying gay people the same rights as others to marry. As it is, the federal government is anything but neutral. They deny over one thousand federal benefits to people legally married in several states who happen to be of the same sex.

Side: yes
1 point

Here is a thought for you. Imagine a large island with just gay people and they are allowed to marry. How long would that population last?

Consider Webster's definition of dysfunctional in regards sociology; a consequence of a social practice or behavior pattern that undermines the stability of a social system.

So someone please tell me why it would be a good idea to legalize dysfunction. Is that not the antithesis of government?

And just for the record. Homosexuality is not a person, it is a behavior. My comments against homosexuality are directed at the behavior, not the people practicing it. I love those caught in the gay lifestyle and want to see them set free.

And for those in the gay lifestyle. You are not a homosexual, you are a human being.

Side: No
hmicciche(660) Disputed
2 points

Here is a thought for you. Imagine a large island with just gay people and they are not allowed to marry. How long would that population last?

Side: yes
1 point

Call it something else. I have no problem with same sex people becoming legal couples, but don't call it marriage.

Side: No
hmicciche(660) Disputed
3 points

"don't call it marriage."

Well, marriage is actually a civil union. It is licensed by a civil authority and it is the union of two people. So lets stop calling anything "marriage", at least legally, and let consenting adults form a civil union with the person they love. And if they want, some of them might want to do that in their church or temple!

Side: yes
luv2laf987(11) Disputed
1 point

why not? why not call it marriage? who is it hurting? who here is somehow negatively affected by homosexuals allowing to call themselves married?

and p.s- i know PLENTY of heterosexual couples that shouldn't be married, and no one says anything about them

Side: yes
1 point

I believe in the survival of the human race and if every couple in the known world for say went homosexual humans would thereby go extinct so if we are trying to keep the people in mind here we need to first make sure there are people to look after so same sex marrige should be illegal every where and we cant put limits on it either because that would just be hypocritical

Side: No
hmicciche(660) Disputed
4 points

"if every couple in the known world for say went homosexual humans would thereby go extinct"

Right, and if every couple in the known world went to the movies, humans would thereby go extinct. Because, you know you can't have sex at the movies. Especially when it would be so crowded in the theater.

But I think you are on to something here. If people have same-sex relationships BUT don't make it a legal union, THEN the human race will be saved. But once we let one same-sex couple get married, then everyone will go gay!

For example, in the state of MA -- can't find any heterosexuals in that state now. Even the state Senator posed nude, which is, of course, gay gay gay. Damn that MA. The human race is now doomed.

Side: yes
milotic(6) Disputed
3 points

omg what are you saying that if gay people start getting married there wont be anymore procreation...are you like 5 years old,the laws of attraction wont differ if gay men are getting married or no,that will only make a difference for gay people straight people will not be affected. either way gay people wont make other people gay,so procreation is still gonna happen. your point of view is so silly and has no sens. and by your logic it means that homosexuality is a plague wish is so wrong,how can you explain the existence of a gay person then? a woman and a men no???? if your friend is gay doesn't mean UL be infected or everyone around him will be gay that is so absurd. go read some more psychology people before you get influenced by your instinctive reason that was forged by ignorant individuals.

Side: yes
abcd1234(7) Disputed
1 point

so letting gay people marry is making more people gay? theyre already gay they just want equal marriage rights! its not like letting gay marriage be legal is causing more people to be gay. People are born either straight, bu, or gay theyre not going to change because theyre allowed to get married.

Side: Yes
1 point

To be or not to be...That is not the question.I would say...THIS IS TOTALLY WRONG!! Gay marriage can never be allowed! A man should marry a woman, and technically vice-versa. Why would a man marry another man?! that action is so abnormal...i say that gay (homosexual) people have a psychological problem. What makes them tick? why would men or women act as their opposite gender? THAT is the question. As a matter of fact, there should be no homosexuals at all because it is not right to start doing things that a gender should not do.

summary: No gay people, not even relationships or marriages.

Side: No
hmicciche(660) Disputed
3 points

"Gay marriage can never be allowed!"

Need a list of all the countries in the world where gay marriage is now allowed? Boy, oh boy, you have your work cut out for you, trying to get them all to change their laws.

"No gay people." Too late. If god didn't want people to be gay, She wouldn't have created them.

Side: yes
as2do(65) Disputed
1 point

Holy crap how narrow minded and rude omg wtf is your problem. Ask yourself this if you were gay would you want people saying that to you. Think about thing before spraying your B.S all over this site.

Side: yes
luv2laf987(11) Disputed
1 point

you have got to be kidding me. "...to start doing things that a gender should not do". why shouldn't they get married? how is it hurting you? just let people feel the way they want to and stop being so closed minded. what do you care if a guy likes a guy or a girl likes a girl? so what? and how DARE you call gays crazy! my aunts are gay and they are the most loving people i have ever met. they are smart, driven, talented, and have contributed greatly to our world and there is no reason why they should be discriminated against. besides, people do other unnatural things as well.. like medicine, technically it is unnatural because our bodies are supposed to have the immune system adequate enough to fight off all diseases. so would you consider those who have to take meds to survive unnatural?

Side: yes
1 point

If you make homosexual marriage legal, then what is marriage? If we don't have a clear, stable, and defined meaning than it means nothing. If a man can marry another man, then when we get used to that what will come next? A human marrying an animal? Then what? A human marrying computers, buildings, and rocks?

My most true motive for this view is what the Bible has to say about it, but I try not to debate based on Holy Books because I'm sure many of you don't trust a word it says!

Side: No
hannah165(520) Disputed
1 point

"If a man can marry another man, then when we get used to that what will come next? A human marrying an animal? Then what? A human marrying computers, buildings, and rocks?"

Yes.... because an animal, a computer, buildings, and rocks, can TOTALLY sign a contract, can TOTALLY feel love, (well, I suppose an animal might be able to) and 100% COMPLETELY have legal standing in the government.

Your argument is invalid.

"My most true motive for this view is what the Bible has to say about it, but I try not to debate based on Holy Books because I'm sure many of you don't trust a word it says!"

The government we have is secular, and it's in the constitution that congress won't make any laws just because of religion. Therefore, no matter how true the Bible is (or you think it is), it is not a valid reason to ban gay marriage. Your argument is invalid AND unconstitutional!

Congrats!

Side: Yes
1 point

Marriage, by definition, is a legal contract between a man and a woman. Refusing to change this definition arbitrarily is not discrimination. Lawmakers should not allow gay marriage on the grounds that the two counterparts are of the same sex, which does not fit the marriage definition.

This fact does not mean the legal system is discriminating against the gay orientation or of gay relationships. A solution to the problem would be a whole other kind of legal union for gay couples to enter into. As of now, marriage is a legal covenant designed to take into interest the future plans of a man and women and progeny.

Side: No
zombee(1024) Disputed
1 point

Refusing to change this definition arbitrarily is not discrimination.

Yes, it is. There is no reason not to change the definition except to prevent gays from attaining equal civil rights.

A solution to the problem would be a whole other kind of legal union for gay couples to enter into.

Or we could just let gays get married. Why not?

As of now, marriage is a legal covenant designed to take into interest the future plans of a man and women and progeny.

These plans won't be in any danger if gays are also allowed to get married.

There are also plenty of men and women who never bring progeny into the equation so that's clearly not a prerequisite for marriage.

Side: yes
casper3912(1581) Disputed
1 point

The same argument can be used against interracial marriage, against people of great age gaps, the disabled and the abled, etc...

An arbitrary definition is the problem, the other legal union would be the same as marriage; it would just have another name. A non arbitrary definition would be that Marriage is a contract granting certain rights and privileges. That among these rights are the ability to see your spouse in the hospital, to live on a military base with them if they are in the military, etc.

Side: yes
0 points

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Since homosexuality leads to high rates of suicide, infectious diseases, depression and a reduction of life expectancy by 20yrs it is clear that this lifestyle denies US citizens of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Making gay marriage legal in the U.S. would therefore seem least likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

If it is legalized it then would be the duty of all Americans to change the law since That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.

Please read the following article from The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 10 Number 3 Fall 2005 if you doubt that the gay lifestyle robs people of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Supporting Evidence: Homosexuality: Some Neglected Considerations (www.jpands.org)
Side: No
4thHorseman(11) Disputed
3 points

So let me get this straight. Their lifestyle denies US citizens of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. So your argument to combat that is to...deny homosexuals (also US citizens) the chance of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Hmm, seems a bit contradictory.

I guess we should put a stop to divorce as well. Also higher rates of depression and suicide, effects children, decreased well-being, etc. Are you going to argue that should be abolished as well?

Side: yes
jstantall(178) Disputed
0 points

No contradiction. let me rephrase what you said so as to clear up the confusion;

Their lifestyle robs them of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

If they want to do that fine. No one is saying homosexuals can't, they're free to form relationships, set up housekeeping and whatever their relationship demands.

What we are saying is if that's what you want to do fine, but don't ask us the American people to support you in that decision. Our Government was established to support Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Anything that works against those goals, like homosexuality, is well, against it and not in support of it. It's their choice that denies them these things, not the lack of our support of that choice. Or to put it another way, We are against it, homosexuality, because we want them to have these things, not because we want to deny it to them. Hence no contradiction

In regards the abolition of the things you mentioned. One of the purposes of government is to promote the common good. If those things aren't good for society then government shouldn't promote them and should in fact work to discourage them. Will people still do those things? you bet they will. But most people will respond to incentives and discouragements. If you make it easy more people will do it and if you make it hard less people will do it, it's really that simple. But some people are so thick headed that they love to do what they know is wrong. That's why we build prisons. Is it a perfect system? by no means. Is it the best in all of human history? I'm convinced it is

Side: No
hmicciche(660) Disputed
2 points

Um, guess what. Rejection of homosexuals "leads to high rates of suicide, infectious diseases, depression and a reduction of life expectancy by 20yrs"..that is, if any of what you say is at all true.

And guess what else? Your denigration of peoples sexuality by calling it a "lifestyle" denies US citizens of Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. It's not a lifestyle fella. Its a life.

And sure. Overthrow the government because people decide to stop denying other people equal rights? Sounds like a plan to me. Not a good plan. Just a plan.

Side: yes
0 points

marrige is a institution ceated be GOD it self... is marrige (family) the base of societity... is a relation between a man and a woman not between two person of the same sex... by doing the contrry is going agains God... because you saying with your action GOD make a mistake, and that so wrong... accept your self and try to be what you are a man or woman

Side: No
caged(6) Disputed
2 points

If there is such a thing as god, owong, and god made man and woman, and man is sexually attracted to other men and this is against that god's will, then yes, god made a mistake.

Side: No
withkids(5) Disputed
2 points

I am sure you will be dealt with when your time comes. GOD made a mistake, What are you insane?? GOD DOES NOT MAKE MISTAKES!!! He made you didnt he???

Side: No
luv2laf987(11) Disputed
1 point

first of all, your enlglish is horrible my friend, i can hardly understand what you are saying. and secondly, some people are born gay and can't help the way they feel. god created people so technically he also created gays. besides, where in the bible does it specifically state that gays shouldn't marry? show me the passages to back up your ridiculous argument

Side: yes
0 points

Truth is, why do men and women WANT gay marriage? I mean, there is no point in doing a marriage if its going to be real gay. I mean, who wants to see to men walking together jolding hands and kissing? That's just constipated. :/

Side: No
withkids(5) Disputed
1 point

your brain seems constipated with nonsence and discrimination.

Side: yes
-1 points

Lol exactly.

Dihorrea actually

Side: No
0 points

Truth is, why do men and women WANT gay marriage? I mean, there is no point in doing a marriage if its going to be real gay. I mean, who wants to see to men walking together jolding hands and kissing? That's just constipated. :/

Side: No

God made man for woman and woman for man thats all I got to say.

Side: No
Tigra07 Disputed
1 point

God didn't make man or woman you inbred

Adam and Eve have kids, then what?

Their kids have kids with each other, then their kids, and theirs, and so on

Religion is a joke for uneducated people who couldn't explain the sky, the sun, or why we don't fall off the other side of the world

Side: yes
milotic(6) Disputed
1 point

all you got to say ha,i couldn't find more from you even if i wanted. before saying god said that and that and that,why dint you prove the existence of god at the beginning,then prove his capacity to say something then prove our capacity to understand him...and if god can talk to humans and we can interact with him that would mean he is no longer god because he loses hes main essence.

Side: yes
luv2laf987(11) Disputed
1 point

actually, most people who are gay are born gay and cant help it.. God created people so I guess one could say he also created gays. besides, whats so wrong about being gay? how does it hurt or affect you? why do you care about other people's love lives?

Side: yes
0 points

gay marriage is not the right option becuase it affects the future generation.

Side: No
deepss(9) Disputed
0 points

this change comes in child age so children dont know what it right and what is wrong for them.. so they violate the law of god to marry the same sex.

Side: technically no
hmicciche(660) Disputed
2 points

God does not issue marriage licenses, the government does. Let me know when that changes...or whenever we elect god to be president.

Side: No
0 points

No, it should not.

Same-sex marriage is an oxymoron. Marriage is, by definition, a union between a man and a woman.

Side: No
zombee(1024) Disputed
2 points

Then we should change the definition.

-----------------------------------------------

Side: yes
0 points

No fagets! God made woman for man and man should apreciate it. 285 people who voted on this must be fags... not my problem.

Side: No
Savs578(1) Disputed
2 points

1. You really spelled faggots wrong.

2. Saying "fags" is rude and demeaning.

3. By saying that everyone who voted "yes" is a homosexual, you are being ignorant to the world around you. I myself am not gay, but I do have friends and family who are. There is no difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals besides the gender of the person that they love. And if God did create all, then why did he create homosexuals? I'm sorry that you are to arrogant to realize this.

Side: yes
-2 points
Awen27(541) Disputed
7 points

If people accept that it's okay to like peas, will everyone in the world begin liking peas?

Side: yes
3 points

We can't have the whole world likingh peas -- because we will soon run out. We need a minority of people to like zucchini.

Which reminds me. Someone needs to invent a zucchini detector, to stop people from smuggling it into my house. Why do all these people keep bringing me zucchini? Are they trying to turn me into a zucchini lover?

Side: yes
simsoy(10) Disputed
3 points

gays are born, not turned. Gay people cant make more gay people and they alwasy would be the minority. Look at Canada or places where gays are aloud to marry, i havent herd on the news: canada's population gone!

Side: yes
caged(6) Disputed
3 points

Actually, there are a number of cases cited in which homosexual behavior is a byproduct of childhood sexual abuse.

Side: No

Wait a minute..., that's not entirely true. Metrosexuals are turned not born. ;)

Side: No
Kinda(1649) Disputed
2 points

Gays are not born.

Any evidence pointing to that direction tends to be correlative and only applies to homosexuality in males...

Side: No
Sw1010(5) Disputed
1 point

It's not a short term effect... It's a long term effect.. It's not like a natural disaster, but like a plague

Side: No
withkids(5) Disputed
3 points

that is so WRONGGGGGGGG! You really need to do your homework. Did you know that way back during the Greeek times, Men and women only had intercourse to reproduce. Sexual pleasure came from same sex intercourse. Most people will always want children weather they are gay or straight

Side: yes
jimmykole(24) Disputed
2 points

Well considering we have a OVER populated planet already instead of having to rule how many children a family is allowed to have like China. Why is more gays a bad thing if gay marriage will lead to a slow down in population growth then why hasn't it been legalized sooner? Would you rather have no gay marriage and a over populated plant where children are starving due to having a insignificant amount of food because that is where we are now and going more so to in the near future.

Side: yes
2 points

Taking in the worlds resources into consideration, I believe that a drop in population would do the world a lot of good right now.

Side: yes
1 point

There will be an increasing amount of Gays.

That is a lie!, there would be an increase in gay marriages yes, But not an increase in gays. Your not raised to be gay! It's more of a mental thing, I mean think about it for a minute, If we are raised to like the opposite sex? then why are there so many people wanting to marry the same sex?

Side: No
milotic(6) Disputed
1 point

if 20 percent of children that are born are homosexuals means 80 percent are not ...the percentage cant be altered into saying the 20 percent will influance the 80 and there would be 100 percent homosexuals...tht is totaly absurd. the gay people will marry gay people and the straight would marry straight people as simple as that.allowing the gay people to get married wont alter the fact of their existance it will alter your conception of their existance. preventing same sex marriage is just like racisme,slavery,despotisme...do not ask for your own rights if you cant ask for the right of an other human.

Side: yes
hmicciche(660) Disputed
1 point

What will happen if Negros are accepted? There will be an increasing amount of Negros! That equal rights thing is dangerous!

Side: yes
luv2laf987(11) Disputed
1 point

really? if people already are gay and become married thats not going to lead to an increase in the ammount of gays. plus, i think the world needs a bit of a population decrease anyways

Side: yes