CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I think there is a limitation in marriagies. You can't marry the same sex person. If there wasn't any limitation, people would marry to the same sex before. There were a lot of famous people who were gays in the past such as Makedonskii,Groznii and so on.
Why not? I've NEVER heard a good reason why not. If you don't like gay marriage then don't marry some one that is gay. You do not have a right to tell somebody else to live by your religious standards. That is a violation of their freedom of religion. People DO NOT have to be christians. It's called the freedom of religion. Learn to respect it or leave the country. If you want to live in a country ruled by religion, there are plenty of then out there.
If you don't want parents to be judged, the mother and father should have different cars. The mother must have a small sedan or minivan and the father must have a big work truck. If they don't, they will be judged.
They must also have different haircuts which resemble their biological sex. They must also comply with fashion, if they deviate from what is “in” with clothes, they will be judged.
It doesn't matter that the same sex marriages should be allowed. If you are the only parent of your child, it is your falt. Anyway, you can lose your partner by some reasons or split up.
It is not the reason to allow the same sex marriagies. In my opinion, a child will be halfly developed. He will get only the information about men from his fathers or only th information about the women.
Whats wrong with a child having two mothers or two fathers, as long as they love the child then there's nothing wrong i'd rather see a child with two same sex parents that love it than a child with a mixed sex or single parent that is abusive. By the way allowing same sex marriage does'nt automatically mean their going to have or adopt children, also Lesbians can still have children wether they are married or not
I don't mean only the children...It looks ubnormal.Only imagine if half of the world had the same sex partner. It would look very strange. You walk together,hug each other,kiss and so on...
So what your saying is your a bigot, their different to you so you dont like it I feel sad for you afterall their human beings and deserve to be happy. By the way what does ubnormal mean first time I saw it I thought it was a typo.
So because it looks abnormal or strange, you would outlaw it?
This is not a valid argument for outlawing same sex marriage. This is just "I think same sex marriage looks gross/weird, let's make it illegal!". Yeah, gtfo.
What's wrong with a child having two mothers or fathers is that the child will grow up with a warped perspective of marriage, one that is death-dealing in the long run, either by disease or spiritual death.
Lesbians can still have children if they want to, this is true. And this is something I could never figure out.
Why aren't lesbians attracted to male homosexuals? You would still have each thinking they are the opposite of what their natural body says they are. The woman, thinking she is a man inside, would then be with a man, thinking he is a woman inside. What's up with that? I'm not saying I agree with it--in fact, I strongly disagree with it. I could just never figure the whole thing out.
What persepctive is that, that the important thing in marriage is for the people involved to love and support each other? Why is that warped?
You really know nothing about Homosexuals and Lesbians do you, Homosexual men are not Women trapped in a Mans body and vice-versa Lesbians are not Men trapped in a Womans body your getting confused with Trans-gender people which is a totally different thing (Gay and Transgender people tend to support people because they are both minorities get a hell of a lot of abuse from people). Homosexual men have no sexual or romantic interest in Women and Lesbians have not sexual or romantic interest in Men, it is as simple as that and not really hard to figure out.
i would like to say something about this i think i should be allowed. If a staright couple can love each other and they're child. why can't a gay couple be the same way if thy treat there child right isn't that what matters the most. Why should we care if it is a gay or striaght couple. over the years people have become more tolerant with gays bisexuals and lesbians
i think.. it should be allowed because.. if straight couples are allowed to marry then why not the same sex.... i agree that this wont reproduce any child baby but in a populated country like india, population can also be contold.... and more orphans can hav a family
so its good naaa.... the world is overpopulated though... assume each and everyone getting good jobs...no poverty... i wud luv to live in that place....
hmmm c... to change the thinking of others u need to change yourself first...!! m nt talking about myself only bt i always try to abstain that narrow thinking....
why not? i mean people must live their lives as they want and how they feel comfortable..if government is not allowing it then people are not at their liberty..life is all about living happily if people are happy this way then absolutely it should be allowed..
I want to say that it is not happiness. It confuses children about gender roles and expectations of society, and only a man & woman can pro-create. Each sex will lose its values.
I think it's terribly arrogant to speak of gender roles in a society that is as progressive as the United States. What exactly is your point of view in terms of these "gender roles" that you speak of? Man goes to work, plays sports with his kids, watches football? Woman goes to work (obviously not as high paying as the man's, but given today's situation she just HAS to work,) comes home, cooks dinner, puts kids to bed?
If that is your idea of gender roles in the US, quite frankly, I'd rather not accept them. I'd rather live in an ever changing, open minded society that accepts people for who they are and recognizes the differences in people as opposed to criticizes those differences. I know a few kids who have two same sex parents -- and I can tell you that they look normal, they speak normally and their opinions on society are certainly not misguided nor anarchistic.
Ofchourse we can find exceptions in everything. However, i say in general that it is not ethical. I don't want my son to marry a boy, or daughter to marry a girl. It will look strange and bad from religious side.
That's fine, and you're completely entitled to that opinion, but please don't allow your religion to govern a country that many people live in, many of which do not share the same religious beliefs as you do.
they fall in love with who they fall in love with. its not your choice to choose who somebody else loves and marries. so leave them alone. im straight but i think love is beautiful and its pretty much not their choice once they fall in love with someone. they can try to talk themselves out of it but it wont work. they are who they are and they should rock it!
The state should not condone unions that are not condusive to the state's wellbeing and sustainability.
Legislating gay marriage is not beneficial to the state. Legalizing gay marriage is essentially a waste of societal resources. Basically it would be governmental charity.
Same sex marriage is no more or less conducive to the states wellbeing and sustainability than mixed sex marriage, what a load of bollocks. I could understand if you had some misguided religous reason to be anti but to say its for the good of the state is ridiculous.
Please explain how it would be a waste of societal resources and a government charity? You do realise that when you get married its not the government that pays, if anything in these impoverished times it could help struggling businesses stay afloat.
For the state, supporting marriage is a very costly affair. Married couples enjoy tax deductions, increased state pensions, increased welfare payments etc. Getting married can have quite a few considerable benefits.
I would like to know, why you think the goverment does this? Is it because the government is just generally nice? Is it because it's customary? Why do you think the state bothers to regulate and encourage marriages at all?
The reason the government bothers to regulate marriage is because of procreation. Since the society is made up of human beings, it is very important for the state to facilitate the reproduction of new human beings (new citizens and taxpayers)l. By encouraging the formation of long-term heterosexual unions (marriage) through many financial benefits - the state guarantees the longetivity and health of the society.
So it makes sense for the state to recognize heterosexual unions and to encourage and support them. Supporting marriage is essentially an investment into the future, because there is a good chance that the long term family unit will produce new taxpayers and citizen who will go on to form their own families with their own offspring - more taxpayers and citizens.
Gay unions are incapable of procreating, therefore supporting gay marriage simply does not make sense from the perspective of the state. Investing into and supporting gay marriage is a waste because no relevant payoff is to be expected. This is why I called the legislation of gay marriage governmental charity.
You can, of course, disagree with all of this - but if you do, I want to know why you think the state bothers to regulate marriage in the first place?
I don't live in the US nor am I its citizen, so I can't say I am competent enough to comment on the US constitution.
Regardless - Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
What does the pursuit of happiness entail? The ability to do whatever one wants? The ability to do whatever one wants as long as they do not harm nor burden someone else or society as whole? Tell me, what does it mean?
Lesbians can procreate, gay men can adopt that keeps the family unit going but using your logic me and my wife should not have been allowed to get married as we cant procreate so a Lesbian couple would be more beneficial to the societal pool.
First of all - you did not answer my question. I asked you - Why do you think the state bothers to regulate marriage in the first place? What do you think marriage is about in the eyes of the state?
Lesbians can procreate, gay men can adopt that keeps the family unit going but using your logic me and my wife should not have been allowed to get married as we cant procreate so a Lesbian couple would be more beneficial to the societal pool.
Lesbians can procreate... with the opposite sex. Gay men can adopt, sure, but so can friends - should friendships also be given marital status? Adoption has no bearing on the reproductive capability of the gay union. Only heterosexual acts and unions can actually produce offspring - so gay unions aren't really producing new taxpayers and citizens at all - their relations with the opposite sex are producing new taxpayers and citizens. Raising humans and creating humans are two separate things.
And you and your wife are still allowed to be married, because you are a heterosexual couple and therefore, still a procreative type couple. It's just that your union is defective. As I said, the state supports hetero marriages, because hetero unions have the highest potential of creating new human beings. Of course not all hetero couples can and will reproduce, but that doesn't change the fact that hetero couples and unions are the only ones capable of reproducing and are also the most likely unions to reproduce. Gay unions are the least likely unions to reproduce - and even then, reproduction cannot occur without the opposite sex.
Gays simply have no procreative capability, so gay unions cannot be considered that of procreative variety - essentially this is why they are excluded from the privilege of marriage. This is also why the state is reluctant to condone and encourage gay marriages - since they are the least likely union to consistently produce offspring, supporting them is essentially a waste of societal resources.
The argument that the state needs to encourage heterosexual unions as a means of encouraging procreation is hard to grasp. Should homosexual couples be given the opportunity to sign an affidavit to create "new" human beings in order to get married? That sounds like an efficient way to achieve same sex marriage in the USA.
Sure, that's one way to do it. However, it would become inexplicable as to why any relationship shouldn't qualify as marriage as long as they sign a ''I-will-procreate'' register. Friends can sign this contract as well for example, so can blood relatives (assuming the reproduction takes place outside of the family) and calling that marriage would be outright absurd.
The affidavit is a solution - but it's a solution that qualifies any human relationship for marriage.
If we allow one non-procreative union to marry, it becomes inexplicable why we shouldn't allow all non-procreative unions to marry.
That's my point: I think that highlights the weakness in your argument. Only if we approach this argument in the most simplistic way can we arrive at a conclusion that supports your response: only NATURALLY procreative unions may be allowed to get married in the United States.
I think we have gone past the point where we need more citizens populating our lands. To say that we are overpopulated is a harsh understatement: anyone living in an urban area will tell you wonderful tales of births to unwed parents, widespread poverty and overall abuses of the financial system that homosexuals merely want a chance to participate in.
If the financial benefit being given to married couples is, in your eyes, fueled by a US-government inspired way to encourage natural procreation, would your views change if all of the benefits of marriage dissipated in the US? If the government took away all benefits that married couples have (which wouldn't be a terrible idea, mind you,) would then every couple that wanted to get married have the opportunity to get married, regardless of the nature of this procreative abilities?
That's my point: I think that highlights the weakness in your argument. Only if we approach this argument in the most simplistic way can we arrive at a conclusion that supports your response: only NATURALLY procreative unions may be allowed to get married in the United States.
When I ment procreative types, I ment naturally procreative types. I suppose I should be more specific when making my arguments.
I think we have gone past the point where we need more citizens populating our lands. To say that we are overpopulated is a harsh understatement: anyone living in an urban area will tell you wonderful tales of births to unwed parents, widespread poverty and overall abuses of the financial system that homosexuals merely want a chance to participate in.
The major softening of the general objective of marriage has actually caused native europeans to go into decline.
White europeans are more likely to get a divorce, less likely to have children, more likely to get abortions etc compared to middle-eastern and african immigrants. This is because the institution of marriage has been critically weakened and many sociologists actually expect the immigrants to overtake the indigenous europeans in the span of a century or so.
If the financial benefit being given to married couples is, in your eyes, fueled by a US-government inspired way to encourage natural procreation, would your views change if all of the benefits of marriage dissipated in the US? If the government took away all benefits that married couples have (which wouldn't be a terrible idea, mind you,) would then every couple that wanted to get married have the opportunity to get married, regardless of the nature of this procreative abilities?
Prima facie, I would say - Yes. If the state doesn't pay them any costly support money, they should be able to get married.
On the other hand, I feel that the state should not condone any sort of behavior that isn't condusive to the wellbeing of the state and society.
And, you may have mentioned it already but at this point I'm enjoying our discourse too much to read, how do homosexual couples not contribute to the well being of state and society?
I liked your ideas that it is a waste of money to pay them for the same sex couples. They won't give us future generation. Moreover, people will look at you strangely. More diseases will appear. From religious side it is a thin.
Are you fucking kidding you a really going to pin disease on gays and bis like my self. and gays can produce a next generation its called a sarrogate mother. You dumb fuck you aree reffering to AIDS being a disease only effecting gays your wrong straight people can still get aids. I hope you get aids and die!!!
I agree with you that the same sex marriagies shouldn't be allowed. There are many reasons to support this statement. One of them is that it leads to a much lower life expectancy, psychological disorders, and other problems.
Legislating homosexual union is detrimental to the state, but this is a carpetbagger society now, where the form of government is going to change more than people bargained for four years ago. After the rank and file realize that has happened, the carpetbaggers will get richer off of what they take from us.
I wouldn't care they legalized homosexual union, as long as the term 'marriage' is not used to describe it, since that's not what marriage is.
I couldn't do anything to stop it happening if I even wanted to. Everyone has a few choices left.
Homosexual marriages should not be allowed. This is because it is morally incorrect. Humans are supposed to be reproductive.
I am not criticizing gays or lesbians. I think they are mentally ill. Their personalities may have been influenced by the surroundings when they were children.
They say they encountered their lives' hardest times when they realized that they are different. We need to help them out to recover and change since they are not wrong but different.
Homosexual marriages should not be allowed. This is because it is morally incorrect. Humans are supposed to be reproductive.
Really??? Sooooo...if a woman or man is physically unable to reproduce, then they shouldnt marry either because they arent capable of making babies??? Or men or women who have made a choice to not bring kids into the world shouldnt be allowed to marry because they wont reproduce??? Look, as a christian, I personally believe it is wrong, but I also know that it is not my right to dictate who someone can or cannot be with. Because of my personal beliefs, I feel this will be between them and God. He is the one who will judge, not me, not you, not any of us. We do NOT have that right. How would any of you feel if the shoe was on the other foot? Someone telling YOU, hey, you cant be with that person, because I THINK ITS WRONG! Think about it!
Homosexual marriages should not be allowed. This is because it is morally incorrect. Humans are supposed to be reproductive.
Really??? Sooooo...if a woman or man is physically unable to reproduce, then they shouldnt marry either because they arent capable of making babies???
>>As usual, the debater has taken the statement into the realm of the off topic ridiculous.
The definition of the term 'marriage' does not depend upon the male and female couple producing children, only that they could by nature if their reproductive capabilities were normal.
That is not the case, ever, with homosexual couples. Their union may be in their own minds, and even by law of a state, but it will never fit the natural God-given definition of marriage.
i totally agree with you. i mean like, telling someone not to be happy is like taking away freedom and independence. i thought a democracy was to be free, not to be unhappy. if i wanted my life to be told by a stupid president, i would go to china!
In my point of view, same sex marriages should be banned. Because it is really abnormal and it is really horror to see children with two father. In addition, from the religious side it is SIN. For example sodom and gomorrah, there was a lot of homosexualism, in the end God destroyed these cities.
I think they shouldn't be allowed. The main reason for that is the injury to child's mind. If children have two mothers or two fathers, these parents will give another representation of life. Also it can lead to demographic problems.
Unfortunately, in our society the majority do not accept the same sex couples. And the "usual" parents say their children to avoid children who have two mothers/fathers. Therefore children of the same sex couples suffer from the lack of communication, and usually these children seem to be mockingbirds.
This not evidence against same sex marriage, this is evidence that bigotry is alive and well. Using your argument, women should not have the right to vote because at one time it was not accepted that they should.
Let me guess it's a same sex marriage is not right because you shouldn't think you are a woman inside a mans body or a man inside a woman's body is just plain wrong saudmn and gamiah you should I know about this if you are Christians? but it is not my place to judge a gay so you make a realist of what you believe my first time starting a debate so I just wanted to come to give the full speech thanks for reading
OK well same sex marriage will not be in my hands to say no or yes or no but is should be band because its wrong to rich the same parts together for a female and female or male and male
