#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
To pro-life who are also anti-samesex marriage
''If the fetus you save is gay, will you still fight for it's rights?'' - LGBT
That makes sense
Side Score: 50
|
 |
You're a motherfucker
Side Score: 48
|
|
1
point
-2
points
just kidding, this shit makes no fucking sense. fetuses can't be gay because being gay is a choice. it is a choice in the same sense that smoking, eating junk food or alcoholism is a choice. some people are prone to be that way. fuck, there's kids that start smoking/drinking/eating junk at 3 year old. anyone that claims it isn't a choice in this sense is de facto claiming that epigenetics isn't science. epigenetics explains this exact mechanism. we're basically being taught to admire alcoholics/smokers/obese people/gay people. shouldn't the opposite be the case? shouldn't we admire people that choose not to drink/smoke/be fat/be gay even though they're prone to be that way? because fags teach us that up is down and black is white they deserve all the hate they are getting. Side: That makes sense
|
1
point
1
point
1
point
1
point
My rights will die with me and your rights will die with you but they will continue to exist for as long as people claim to have them. Some rights can be given too. Like if I give you a power of attorney, you would have the right to manage my finances and sign my name to legal documents. Side: That makes sense
1
point
1
point
2
points
How do you expect to prove that rights don't exist when it's obvious that they do? They are established in international courts. They are in our declaration of independence in our laws and in our constitution. You make a good point that they aren't recognized in some places but that is not proof of anything more than that to me. Side: That makes sense
1
point
Hope you don't mind if I butt in. Here's the definition of existence. the fact or state of living or having objective reality Now, here is the definition of objective. not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts And then Reality the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them I could go on defining words but I won't. Now, if we're going by these definitions, rights cannot exist because they are subjective and relative. I could believe one thing is a right, you another and we both could be "wrong" according to the government, who creates these "rights". Rights cannot survive independently of human thought and therefore do not exist. See, if you go by some other definition that supports your side then we can also say that dreams, fantasies, ideas, everything that has to do with human thought "exists". If you do believe these things, your perception of reality is clearly different from mine, as your definition of it. (http://oxforddictionaries.com) Side: You're a motherfucker
1
point
1
point
Morality and Legality does not exist either, according to the definition. They cannot stand alone without human thought. Please clarify if I am wrong or if I misunderstood you in any way. If those realities were created by human thought, does it still exist? Also, both realities are subjective, not objective. Objectivity is key in existence unless we're going by the theory that "perception is reality" in which each person has their own reality. Side: You're a motherfucker
1
point
we might have to agree to disagree. I know that rights exist legally and morally. I'm not going to debate it anymore because I don't know how to convince you that they exist. Maybe if you were to have your rights taken from you? That might do the trick. Side: That makes sense
1
point
I'm just trying to say that they do not have existence, according to the definition of existence. They may "exist" legally and morally but that doesn't mean they really "exist". Its like if I had an imaginary friend. I love the imaginary friend. It makes me feel safe from bad things. It's real to me. That doesn't mean it's real, its just real to me, in one subjective aspect of my reality. I do not dispute that rights are great things that I am immensely happy to have, but just because they exist to me or a group of people, that doesn't mean they exist. I guess I don't know how to fully explain it either. Agreeing to disagree seems like the best option. Side: You're a motherfucker
1
point
I mean, I won't deny you the 'right' to believe in rights if you want (oh the irony), but they are not a tangible thing. At least, even with concepts like 'love' we can see some kind of biological proof that the emotion is occurring. 'Rights' have no such proof or evidence; they exist solely in the mind. If by 'real' you mean 'as real as a concept can be' then yeah, maybe they are real. But tangible and existing on their own, separate from us? No. No such thing exists. Side: That makes sense
This is the response I gave to Warlin. It fits your argument as well: "Real" doesn't just mean something that exists; it also means "true or actual". If I were to say your real name is Frank (pretend it is), then would I be wrong? A name is a decision your parents made for you; it began as a thought. A name isn't tangible. Same as if I were to say you have the right to vote. It is a true statement, is it not? Side: That makes sense
My name is something that identifies who I am. Without such labels, anarchy ensues. Or at least we'd have about 7 billion people named 'that guy' or 'that girl'. It's not a concrete thing, so I guess it's technically not real... though I suppose one could argue that it is the sequence of guttural noises emanating from the vocal chords that relate to me. Interesting note: I've been thinking of changing my name. So it's not something that's permanent, such as a rock. I'm sure animals also have ways of getting each others' attention, yes? As for a 'right to vote', it's also not a permanent thing. It can be lost as easily as smoke in the wind. So I don't believe they are real, or even true. I'm even in favor of a monarchy, if it could be done correctly. But history shows it can't be, apparently. It's not so bad though. At least I believe this reality exists. :P Side: That makes sense
Just because something may not be permanent, doesn't make it less real. Your lunch is not permanent; you eat it, digest it, and then it disappears, yet you still really ate it. Rights come and go; names come and go... but they truly were/are important parts of our lives. If you want to get technical then yes, rights do not exist, but they are real. Side: That makes sense
My lunch is in fact permanent; even after eating it and digesting it, the energy remains, albeit in a different form. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, supposedly. A concept possesses no such energy past the amount of energy it takes to dream it up. And that's brain activity, not the idea's own energy. Side: That makes sense
Are you religious? I'm not, but I think I read in another debate that you are a Christian. Proverbs 31:8-9 8 Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. 9 Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy. So, assuming that you really are a Christian, you should know that the Bible explains of many different human rights. According to the Bible, these are rights given to us by God; not by man. Side: You're a motherfucker
Tangible things exist. Thoughts and ideas are out of the realm of the real. If you want to get into some crazy mind-stuff, we can, but I should clarify what I mean since you seem to be pretty adamant on this: Rights aren't going to stop a bullet from passing through someone's skull. They're not going to stop someone from harvesting another's organs. Hell, they might not even stop someone from taking another's property. People who believe in these rights might try to stop someone from doing these things to other people, but at the end of the day, it's people, not ideas. 'Rights' is really a bad word for it, because 'Rights' really makes it seem like we deserve these. That the laws of nature, as it were, will bend to the 'rights' that we've fabricated, is kind of a silly notion. They're more like... privileges we agree to give one another. The world is savage(And y'know, beautiful) once you peel back the social membrane. Side: That makes sense
"Real" doesn't just mean something that exists; it also means "true or actual". If I were to say your real name is Frank (pretend it is), then would I be wrong? A name is a decision your parents made for you; it began as a thought. A name isn't tangible. Same as if I were to say you have the right to vote. It is a true statement, is it not? Side: That makes sense
They do not exist. Rights are not real. People want them to exits; however, they are not. Real in imagination, sure. You basically said the same exact thing in each of those four sentences. Is that your only argument for rights not existing, because it isn't a very strong one? Side: That makes sense
I think they are saying that "rights" as a set of agreed-upon allowances do exist. But there are no fundamental rights (except maybe one); if there was no law, the only actual right a person would have is to try to survive. Supposing there are no legal or social repercussions; name one other 'right' a person has. Side: You're a motherfucker
1
point
1
point
1
point
(1) I love people of the same sex but that does not mean that I want to marry them. I'm not dictating who people should love; I'm saying that gays have equal rights as heterosexuals. (2) There is no such thing as absolute liberty. And if there were, liberty would be bad. Side: That makes sense
1
point
1
point
1
point
I love people of the same sex but that does not mean that I want to marry them. That has nothing to do with the subject. I'm saying that gays have equal rights as heterosexuals. No they don't. They don't get to marry the person they love, the person they have an emotional and sexual relationship with. There is no such thing as absolute liberty. And if there were, liberty would be bad. This hasn't got to do with the subject either. Side: You're a motherfucker
Homosexuals can marry the people whom they love as long as it is someone of the opposite sex. Love does not necessarily have to be sexual; and if you want to say that it is, then it reverts into preference. Preference is not the basis for laws and rights. Side: That makes sense
1
point
Homosexuals can marry the people whom they love as long as it is someone of the opposite sex. Then you are dictating whom they can love emotionally and sexually. Liberty might not be good, but the way you describe it, it isn't fair at all. Love does not necessarily have to be sexual; Did I say that? Aren't we discussing that kind of love right now? If you want to marry, one would think you had an emotional and sexual relationship with each other. Preference is not the basis for laws and rights. If someone said you can't marry the person you deeply want to marry, would you just move on and accept it, just because a law says so? Side: You're a motherfucker
I'm not dictating who someone can love emotionally and sexually. They can still do so; they just can't marry them. It is still fair. If someone said you can't marry the person you deeply want to marry, would you just move on and accept it, just because a law says so? Yes Side: That makes sense
1
point
I'm not dictating who someone can love emotionally and sexually. They can still do so; they just can't marry them. It is still fair. It's not fair that I can marry the person I love, but they can not. That is not fair. Yes So you'll accept everything the law says? Side: You're a motherfucker
A gay person can marry the person he or she loves as long as it is of the opposite gender. As I have said, preference is not the basis for rights and laws so sexual love is irrelevant to the discussion. Not everything the law says I will do; however, if it does not go against God, then I will obey it. Side: That makes sense
1
point
1
point
John 3;16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." Does't '' whoever believes in him '' suggest that we actually have a choice? You say we don't have free will, how come I don't believe in your God if I didn't have the free will to do so? Side: You're a motherfucker
1
point
Yes, I am saying that we do not have choice. I am aware the 2/3 of the world's population is not Christian; the number is actually probably a lot higher than that. People are conceived into a natural state of sinfulness. We are born intrinsically evil and destitute of all godliness. We cannot believe in God unless God allows us to believe in Him. In absolution, God has created all those who will not believe, which are the wicked, for the day of trouble so that His elect may be shown grace and mercy and love. This is what the Bible teaches; this is what truth is. Side: That makes sense
1
point
1
point
Okay here is what I don't understand. 1. How can an all loving being create people just to throw them in hell? 2. That goes against everything I've heard in my life about God and Christianity. I grew up in a Christian home, I went to sunday school when I was taught that we all had a choice to follow him. I know several christian people, I'm friends with a lot of them, also the one's who don't go to the Church I used to go to. What you says goes against everything my Church taught me, and everything my friends believe in. If God already has decided who is going to believe, then why do Christians preach? Why do they try to get more people to believe in God, when it's useless? Your faith doesn't make sense. Side: That makes sense
1. How can an all loving being create people just to throw them in hell? (1) God does not love everyone in a personal sense; God loves everyone in a story sense. As any author, God loves the story as a whole, including the characters in it, both good and evil peoples, because the story is good in absolution. However, in a personal sense, God hates the evil ones and loves the good ones. In a movie we watch, we will say we hate a villain; however, he plays the villain well. So God hates evil people and loves everyone: two different senses. 2. That goes against everything I've heard in my life about God and Christianity. (2) Thats because most Christians don't understand the Bible. you probably grew up in an Arminian church, which some Christians don't consider to even be Christian: many consider them to be heretics. If God already has decided who is going to believe, then why do Christians preach? Why do they try to get more people to believe in God, when it's useless? We preach because preaching is the shepherding and nurturing of the flock. Preaching is the personal sensed leading to continual hope and spiritual growth. Evangelism is God's choice to bring new Christians to His family; it is also divinely commanded, which is a separation from God's divine will to His revealed will (Divine will is the absolute story arching will, while the revealed will is God's moral and personal commands). Everything that we do, though, is under the guidance of God; for God is the one who has predetermined everything about us, including our lives. The Word of God is like a sperm, while the heart of man is like an egg: both must be prepared by God to yield any new believers. The Word of God is brought by people, who's steps have been predetermined to happen. Do not mix Calvinism up with Hyper-Calvinism. Your faith doesn't make sense. Read Acts 4:27-30, Romans 3:10-18, Romans 9 in it's entirety, Ephesians 1:3-14, Ephesians 2:1-10, 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12, etc. The following Bible verse actually is parallel in part to the book of Ephesians. Jesus said the following in John 15:16, "You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you." What you are hearing now is the true Word of God and the true Gospel of Christ. God is all-powerful and all-knowing and all-good; so why would one want free will if one believes in Christ? Christ came to save us so that we may live in love and grace and mercy, which, when one thinks about it, is true freedom! Though this freedom is not to be used for evil (Romans 6), we have known true freedom with the propitiation of our sins, though Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour! What shall we fear if God is on our side? Whom shall we fear if God is on our side? If God works all things for the good of those who love Him, then we are free! We can do whatever, in a sense of course, we want without any holding back! True freedom only comes through Christ, which is with no freedom; for freedom does not bring good news but a burdensome and terrifying news. Love and mercy have been drawn to His elect so that they may live in love with God; for if God created everything and God is all-powerful, then what can God gain from His creation? God created His elect so that He may love them! This is the true Gospel and message of Christ and of the Bible! Romans 8:28-35 says the following: "And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose. For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified. / What then shall we say to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies. Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword?" Romans 9 then goes on to elaborate on it; here is a short segment of it: "You will say to me then, 'Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?' But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, 'Why have you made me like this?' Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory" Side: You're a motherfucker
1
point
1. All loving means maximum love, right? If he doesn't love the evil one's then he hasn't got maximum love. For instance, if a woman gives birth to an evil evil killer, chances are she loves her child anyways. But God, like you said, will not love him, because he is an evil killer. Therefore the woman loves the person more than God does, ergo God has not got maximum love. Side: That makes sense
1
point
And I told you that it is still maximal. Simply not loving everyone in a personal sense is not a denial of maximal love; maximal love is loving whatever is loved maximally. However, if you do want to say that it is, then apply the love to the over-arching loving sense, in which God loves everyone and everything. There is still no denial of the maximal love however one defines it. As I have said also, in a personal sense, God does not love the non-elect, which means that the murderer in your example is still not an explanation of why God would not be maximally loving, since maximal loving is loving maximally the ones who are loved, which is not the non-elect in a personal sense. Side: You're a motherfucker
1
point
His love isn't maximal if he doesn't love somebody that another person does. Okay, you believe God doesn't love me, right? Because I don't believe in him. I know for a fact that my mother loves me. That makes my mother more loving than God, since she has the ability to love me, whilst God does not. Side: That makes sense
It is a non sequitur to say that He is not maximally loving because He does not love everyone. You may or may not be the elect. I don't know if you are loved or not in a personal sense. However, simply because He does not love you in that sense does not mean that your mother loves you more than He does in the story sense and common grace sense. You are mixing up terms. Side: You're a motherfucker
1
point
It is a non sequitur to say that He is not maximally loving because He does not love everyone. omg stop saying that I know. I know what maximal love means and I'm saying God hasn't got it. Maximal love means that he has the maximal love of everyone. That means that NOTHING he doesn't love can't be love. My friend is atheist, that means he doesn't love her - if he had maximal love, then that would mean no one could love her either. But that is not true, since she is married, got kids who love her and I love her too. So no - God hasn't got maximal love. Side: That makes sense
Maximal love means that he has the maximal love of everyone. Who says that? Maximal love does not necessarily apply to everyone. My friend is atheist, that means he doesn't love her - if he had maximal love, then that would mean no one could love her either That is a non sequitur. First, you are also assuming that people actually love one another. Second, you are assuming the incorrect definition of maximal love. Third, even if you want to say that God does not have maximal love, which He does, then that does not negate the God of the Bible. Side: You're a motherfucker
1
point
Who says that? Maximal love does not necessarily apply to everyone. Why do you keep saying this? I never said that. First, you are also assuming that people actually love one another. Yes, yes I am. Second, you are assuming the incorrect definition of maximal love. No, no I am not. Third, even if you want to say that God does not have maximal love, which He does, then that does not negate the God of the Bible. It doesn't seem like your God has anything to do with the bible. Side: That makes sense
Why do you keep saying this? I never said that. I'm saying that because that is the actual definition of it. Yes, yes I am. People do not love. They may think that they love but they do not love. No, no I am not. Yes, you are assuming the incorrect definition of it. It doesn't seem like your God has anything to do with the bible. My God is the God of the Bible. Side: You're a motherfucker
1
point
I'm saying that because that is the actual definition of it. But I've never argued that definition. Jesus Christ. People do not love. They may think that they love but they do not love. Says who? You? Yes, you are assuming the incorrect definition of it. Nope. All loving = Maximal Love Maximal love ≠ loves everyone. That is what you've been saying over and over again, and I've never argued that definition. I am trying to tell you, that he is not that definition. I know what the definition is, and God does not fit under it. For the last time. If somebody were to have maximal love, and don't give me the crap about that doesn't mean loves all people, I got it thank you. If somebody were to have maximal love, then that would mean he loves everything that can be loved - in other words, anything that person with maximal love DOESN'T love CAN'T BE LOVED. So that would mean, that the people God doesn't love, can't be loved by anyone, since he has maximal love. Side: That makes sense
But I've never argued that definition. Jesus Christ. Thats the point. The definition that I have been arguing is the actual one; the one you are arguing is pointless because it is not maximal love. Says who? You? Says me and the Bible. All loving = Maximal Love / Maximal love ≠ loves everyone. I have already told you that maximal love is loving maximally. However, that does not mean that everyone is in that love. But if you want to say that it is, then I have already told you that there is common grace and story love, which applies to everyone. Stop ignoring fundamental parts of my argument. I am trying to tell you, that he is not that definition. I know what the definition is, and God does not fit under it. God fits both your definition, as I have shown you with common grace, and with my definition, as I have show with personal love. Stop ignoring fundamental parts. If somebody were to have maximal love, then that would mean he loves everything that can be loved - in other words, anything that person with maximal love DOESN'T love CAN'T BE LOVED. That is a non sequitur as I have already told you. It does not follow to maximal love means loving everyone. So that would mean, that the people God doesn't love, can't be loved by anyone, since he has maximal love. That is a non sequitur, again. You are assuming also that these people are actually loved by anyone. Side: You're a motherfucker
1
point
Thats the point. The definition that I have been arguing is the actual one; the one you are arguing is pointless because it is not maximal love. I haven't argued any definition. You've been arguing with yourself. Says me and the Bible. Where does the bible say that? I have already told you that maximal love is loving maximally. However, that does not mean that everyone is in that love. But if you want to say that it is, then I have already told you that there is common grace and story love, which applies to everyone. Stop ignoring fundamental parts of my argument. OMG THAT IS WHAT I AM SAYING. Are you retarded or something? Seriously it's impossible to debate with you if you aren't reading what I'm saying. Stop ignoring fundamental parts. What fundamental parts have I ignored? That is a non sequitur as I have already told you. It does not follow to maximal love means loving everyone. I know that doesn't mean love everyone. Stop saying that. What I said has nothing to with everyone. I just said that somebody with maximal love loves everything that can be loved, thus what he doesn't love can't be loved by anyone - pure logic. God isn't all loving, sorry dude. That is a non sequitur, again. You are assuming also that these people are actually loved by anyone. No it's not non sequitur. It's simple logic. And people do love. Side: That makes sense
2
points
Agree to disagree then. But I meant the same thing. However, that begs the question; how can you know that you are on the side of truth? Just because 'the bible says so'? Sorry, but I need a lot more evidence than the fact that someone 'told you so'. That would be hearsay in a legal court setting, and hearsay is not admissable as evidence. Therefore, I will not admit it either. Side: That makes sense
Sorry, but I need a lot more evidence than the fact that someone 'told you so'. That would be hearsay in a legal court setting, and hearsay is not admissable as evidence. Therefore, I will not admit it either. Then the study of history is denied in your worldview. Side: That makes sense
The Bible is not the only historical document. There are historiographies about Jesus by Bart Ehrman, who is a non-Christian, and many other historians. The evidence points to Jesus having risen from the dead and being God, which means that what He said was true, which means that the Bible is true. Side: That makes sense
The evidence points to Him being raised from the dead. A non-Christian source records the following: “Jesus, while alive, was of no assistance to himself, but that he arose after death, and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands had been pierced by nails.” (Origen Against Celsus, Book 2, Chapter 59) Next, we have historical records of radical conversions to Christianity after the resurrection. The belief of the Jews was that the Messiah would come and rescue them from the Romans; this is why Peter even rebuked Jesus for saying that He was going to die and rise again in three days. This is one of the reasons why the Apostles left after Jesus was arrested: they didn't believe that the Messiah was to die and rise again. Why did they radically change to a belief in favor of Jesus being the Christ? Why did Paul change? They all had to be converted some way. Either they were telling the truth, they thought that they were telling the truth, or they knew that they were not telling the truth and did it anyways. Because there were many people, it could not have been the second option. Because the Apostles, including Paul who persecuted the Christians before converting, all went to death with this belief, then it was not a lie; for most people will not die for what they know to be a lie, especially people who had a luxurious life before converting (ie Paul). Therefore, it could not be the third option; therefore, it can only be the first option, historically. That means that Jesus rose from the dead and was who He said He was. Hence, the Bible is true because He said it was true. Side: That makes sense
I haven't argued any definition. You've been arguing with yourself. You can't assume a definition and then argue from that. You must define X and then argue from. Where does the bible say that? The Bible says that the non-elect only have evil within them and cannot love in a personal good sense; however, they love one another in evil, which is representative of common grace. OMG THAT IS WHAT I AM SAYING. You have not been saying that maximal love does not apply to everyone. Are you retarded or something? Seriously it's impossible to debate with you if you aren't reading what I'm saying. Ad hominem. I have been reading it. What fundamental parts have I ignored? Common grace issues. What I said has nothing to with everyone. I just said that somebody with maximal love loves everything that can be loved, thus what he doesn't love can't be loved by anyone - pure logic. God isn't all loving, sorry dude. You just defined what maximal love is just then but before you were saying that you have not defined it. You are contradicting yourself. And that is still a non sequitur: it does not follow that simply because God does not love someone, then that person cannot be loved. No it's not non sequitur. It's simple logic. And people do love. It is not simply logic; it is a non sequitur. Also, you are assuming a different type of love here. Side: You're a motherfucker
I've had about 20 years of 'research', hon. So I know my stuff. You're the one who said to obey morality, not God. "Let your yes be yes and your no be no", remember? In other words, if you meant God you should have said God. As for being morality... well... I don't believe in 'good' and 'evil'. They're the same thing in the end. Side: That makes sense
I said the following: "Because we don't have free will. And God has revealed to us that He wants everyone to obey morality." I clearly said that "God has revealed to us that He wants everyone to obey morality." God is morality, as I have said also. Please Read the beginning of Romans 12:1-2 and 1 John 5:3. Stop calling people hypocrites and actually learn your stuff. Side: That makes sense
(1) The Bible does not condone slavery. The Bible allows slavery because of the hardness of hearts. (2) Slavery is not inherently wrong. (3) If God justifies it, then it is righteous to do; that includes killing and slavery and judging. (4) Stoning people to death is the justice system of the nation of Israel: it is justified. (5) Same issue with burning cities down. (6) You have a problem with God, not what I have said. Side: That makes sense
1
point
"Why do you force people to obey God when he himself gave everyone free will to follow him?" - dude, this isn't how this should work. all you do is ask questions. that's what people that don't know a lot do. god is a complicated concept. people didn't live for 100,000 years and then simply came up with god and that's it. god is all the experience and knowledge of mankind wrapped up into one concept. god represents the ultimate authority not because it exists, which it doesn't but because it is all of human history and experience and that definitely exists. if religious leaders say gay people choose their lifestyle why is this so impossible to accept? even science confirms this as a fact. what more do you need? you've been brainwashed by hideously dishonest propaganda. this propaganda says how a fetus isn't a human being and how abortion is okay. they say that religion claims life starts at birth and, of course, because it's religion, it MUST be wrong! ha-ha-ha, let's all laugh in their faces! but think about this - religion never claimed that! EVER! science did! the problem is you can't mock science like you can mock religion. very devious, isn't it? science proved life starts with conception when chromosomes mix and everything about the future person is encoded in there. all that it takes for a cell to develop into a fetus and then a baby is time. it takes time for a baby to develop into an adult and you don't think killing kids is okay, right? so why should killing fetuses be okay? i know this has nothing to do with the debate but i want you to use your head and think about things like this because: “It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.” ― Mark Twain Side: That makes sense
1
point
"It's not fair that I can marry the person I love, but they can not. That is not fair." - it's not fair!!! boo-hoo-hoo :'( :'( :'( what are you fucking 4 years of age? even kindergarten kids don't complain this much and don't have as much of a sense of entitlement as you do. besides, even if you all do get married people will still hate your fucking guts! probably even more than before! you don't want that for your friend. "So you'll accept everything the law says?" - yes, that's why it's called the law. Side: That makes sense
1
point
1
point
"Then you are dictating whom they can love emotionally and sexually. Liberty might not be good, but the way you describe it, it isn't fair at all." - no, YOU are dictating who you're dicking. fun fact: homosexuality IS A CHOICE!!! "Did I say that? Aren't we discussing that kind of love right now? If you want to marry, one would think you had an emotional and sexual relationship with each other." - NO, one would not think anything! it's not of anyone's business who has sex with whom, how often and for how long. sex has nothing to do with love and it has nothing to do with marriage. it's just a vessel that enables us to create the next generation. it's not a sport, idiot. "If someone said you can't marry the person you deeply want to marry, would you just move on and accept it, just because a law says so?" - oh, fuck man, you're too easy!!! aren't you ashamed for being this stupid? the law DOES NOT say you can't marry the person you want to marry. you just don't qualify. it's not like you have the right and than someone takes that right away. NO, you never had it and you never will and you shouldn't have it. i could be in a deep, emotional, sexual relationship with my sister, mother or even YOUR mother and i still couldn't marry any of them!!!! you shouldn't be awarded medals for doing things WRONG!!! it's like having a child and letting him burn his fingers on a hot stove and every time it did this you applaud instead of teaching him not to do that ever again. that's your logic, bub. Side: That makes sense
1
point
That has nothing to do with the subject. - yes it does! it has EVERYTHING to do with the subject, retard! No they don't. They don't get to marry the person they love, the person they have an emotional and sexual relationship with. - if i love my mum i still don't get to marry her even if you do get to marry your masturbatory aid of a partner. even if i want to marry YOUR mum i can't if she's already married. is any of this getting into your tiny little easy to wash brain? This hasn't got to do with the subject either. - yes it does. you're just avoiding to answer because you're a retard and the propagandists didn't instruct you how to respond. PATHETIC!!! Side: That makes sense
1
point
you got it all backwards but it's okay, we don't expect libfags to know much. marriage cannot be changed so it conforms a tiny group of promiscuous people that most likely don't want to do anything with it because they're fucking promiscuous!!! on top of that they choose to be gay. keep in mind that if you disagree you have to prove to me that people are born obese, born smokers or born alcoholics because the mechanism of how these things are developed is exactly the same as in the people who develop their gayness. Side: That makes sense
1
point
1
point
marriage isn't about celebrating love. that's what relationships are for. a marriage is a duty, a mother's office. that's where the name matrimony comes from. just like the president has a duty and his office, the woman has her own and it's called marriage. gay marriage is a mockery of that institution and for that reason alone it shouldn't exist. good enough for you? i got loads more if not. Side: That makes sense
1
point
-1
points
what gays do is simply masturbatory. they use one another to jerk themselves off. that cannot be called love. it's the same reason why people fuck animals or use sex toys and you don't love those things, do you? even if you love your mother you can't marry her. so, what, should we all freak out and push for legislation so freaks could marry their mothers? that is your human rights solution? that makes no sense. you don't love your mother in the same way you love your wife. you don't fuck your wife in the same way you fuck your mistress. Side: That makes sense
1
point
|
