CreateDebate


Debate Info

45
32
Who cares Because it is gross
Debate Score:77
Arguments:129
Total Votes:81
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Who cares (36)
 
 Because it is gross (29)

Debate Creator

Aimeelynn200(137) pic



Why do you care if same sex marriage is legal or not

I want to know why you think you have a right to decide wether people should be married or not.

Who cares

Side Score: 45
VS.

Because it is gross

Side Score: 32
3 points

Hello A:

I'm just a freedom loving patriot.. I'm not black, but I CARE if black people are free... I'm not a woman, but I CARE if women are free.. I'm not gay, but I CARE if gay people are free..

This is the land of the FREE and I'm just trying to keep that promise.

excon

Side: Who cares
outlaw60(15368) Clarified
1 point

According to the FRAUD all people are free to marry and it didn't even bring up the 14th Amendment ! Is that because you are just trying to keep the PROMISE ?

Side: Who cares
excon(18260) Disputed
1 point

Here boy:

I LOVE that you follow me around like a little puppy dog.. Now, SIT!

excon

Side: Because it is gross
JustTruth(127) Disputed
1 point

Free to marry? So, can a child marry another child or an adult marry a 12 year old child? How about if a man gets 21 women pregnant and has 21 children, can he marry them all and give each child a married mom and dad?

Side: Because it is gross
John_C_1812(277) Disputed
1 point

Excon(1423)

As a patriot it is liberty you seek. Freedom is the first Amendment made on the patriot’s liberty granted to them by an Axiom of GOD under United State found by Constitution. Point blank any person of color and breath does not ever want to be free. Give us liberty in any way, shape, or form, not freedom. The liberty of speech, representation by common defense.

Free has no self-value to which as people, as men, as woman, humans hold independence dear. It is a presumption by interpretation that self-value can be added to the word free, as any free state in truth holds no self-value. The word Free hides one and only one cost, free means the loss or right of self-value. Only an object such as what is owned can be free.

Many black Americans are in fact not free, and a republic will riotously argue never shall be just free, by their service to the republic in time of war they have been granted liberty. Even when they themselves do not understand when, why, and how. This is the nation of Liberty and Justice for all, the bitterness is that any impartial justice does not have as sweet sound like freedom, or insight precedent of fortune, and does not look like a sunny open plain. Liberty has been paid in blood, sweat, pain, and loss, its cost knot hidden.

Side: Because it is gross
1 point

It ks true and trying to comlare gay behaving people with blacks who were brought his with a price is just sick. That price is too high. Many have asked how come the blacks did not go back to Africa when they were freed. Where in Africa? That is like telling an Italian to go to Yugolslavia, but the Italian does not know he is Italian and what the language is. There are 53 countries in Africa and 53 different people and 1100 languages spoken on that continent.

Side: Because it is gross
JustTruth(127) Disputed
1 point

You are jhhst biased in your own mind. You just put blacks and women in the same class as a behavior. Do you care if pedophiles are free? How about incest couples and polygamist? Or, the zoophile who is attracted to his pet? No, you are just a liberal and you have no clue.

Side: Because it is gross
FromWithin(8241) Disputed
1 point

What a load of garbage!

You care if Gay people are free? WHO DOESN'T YOU MINDLESS DECEIVER.

Tell me what Conservatives don't want Gays to be free?

Are you equating not giving unnatural sexual orientation groups a marriage license means they are not free?

Gee, you keep confirming why I ban you.

Side: Because it is gross
3 points

I care because I am a firm believer in civil rights and in the principle you should let other people live their own lives. Marriage has legal and financial implications which can really help gay couples. And there really is NO downside. Heterosexuals can still marry whom THEY want. Heterosexuals can go adopt kids if they're so concerned about gays doing it. Heterosexuals can leave or look the other way if they don't want to look at a gay couple holding hands. And religious people can still look forward to their eternal reward and leave it to God to give a gay couple whatever they deserve. No harm to the religious person then either. No harm to anyone, really. The only harm, right now, is gay couples building lives together don't have all the same rights and privileges as their straight counterparts. That needs to be rectified.

Side: Who cares
2 points

It amazing to me that most of the people against gay marriage are the ones who want the government to stay out of THEIR lives. The ones who want NO regulations. The ones who want the freedom to do as THEY please. .....Can you say: "hypocrisy"????

Side: Who cares
Mint_tea(4641) Clarified
1 point

TO be fair, and I'm just putting this out there. Marriage is typically a religious institution. The government does give benefits and rights to those who are married which is why I fight for same sex marriage. I think if that was taken out and Union were allowed by the government to get those same rights and churches were able to decide if they wanted same sex to marry in the eyes of God, maybe that wouldn't be so bad. There are a good amount of churches who are forward in their thinking and allow same sex marriage, and more are changing their stagnant ways to allow it as well.

Side: Who cares
outlaw60(15368) Clarified
1 point

Marriage is not a religious institution nor has it ever been. When did government get involved in marriage do you know Jewel ?

Side: Who cares
outlaw60(15368) Clarified
1 point

So the Jewel thinks people are typically married in a religious institution really ? Ever heard of a JP ? You people live in a World of Total Confusion and it consumes you as you have just shown !

Side: Who cares
outlaw60(15368) Clarified
1 point

"The government does give benefits and rights to those who are married which is why I fight for same sex marriage."

So benefits and rights only apply to same sex marriage as you have written ?

Insanity is the only place you Leftist can exist proven once again by the Jewel

Side: Who cares
John_C_1812(277) Disputed
1 point

Marriage is a legal and religious institution if it had been just religious the plagiarism would have never manifested to felony criminal acts placed as burden upon witness of an official state document. As with all witnessing to official document the witness need only give a State of the Union. This means two men what type does not matter as it is that separation which creates discrimination, or entrapment. A state of the union is two men, two woman, ,man and woman, nothing else. BiniVir, UnosMulier, marriage, Civil Union.

Are these not states of a union?

Side: Because it is gross
JustTruth(127) Disputed
1 point

Gays have always been able to marry otger gays, but just not the same sex. Actually, it is the gays and you who want the government to stay out of their bedrooms, but they want the government to change marriage and regular air to include them. You gays are the hypocrites. You want special rights and you want laws changed

You fought for the Matthew Shepard hate crime, but Matthew was beaten up by his bisexual lover, over drugs and money. He was a actually left alive and was alive in the hospital for days. He did not die until after a few gay activist groups met with him. Irony, they needed him dead as a martyr.

Homosexuality is not even a sexual orientation.

Side: Because it is gross
outlaw60(15368) Clarified
0 points

Crazy AL you are so wrong ! Your to confused to understand !

Democrats: Stay Out Of Our Bedrooms…Now Let US In, And Drop Your Shorts

The ever rational and pragmatic Senator from California, Kamala Harris, took action recently where she was expressing concern over the upcoming census. (“Upcoming” meaning 2020, mind you.) (“Expressing” in the form of “demanding answers”, mind you.)

Of particular focus to the Democrats – the group frequently lecturing that government needs to stop obsessing over genitals, and has no business being in our bedrooms — was that the new census may not be including questions about what we do with our genitals in our bedrooms.

It is the Democrats that want government out of their bedroom AL ! Pay attention if you can !

Side: Who cares
AlofRI(3294) Clarified
1 point

I MUST be going crazy....right wing style...I don't understand a Fk*ng thing you are talking about! Never did learn to speak conservative! It makes no REAL sense ... I must be crazy!

Know what? I wouldn't have it any other way .... at least the "right" way! (I have too much pride)!

Yeah, you are correct, I want the government OUT of our bedrooms, and, I DON'T believe YOU want them in YOURS! (I wouldn't want to be), mind you.

Side: Who cares
Cartman(18192) Disputed
1 point

You're too *

Side: Because it is gross
1 point

I personally don't care. I think the people that care do so because marriage was historically only a religious phenomenon, whereas nowadays there are also secular marriages.

Side: Who cares
1 point

Yeah I totally agree with you, what I believe is that it's not your life so you can do whatever you want. I don't understand why people can't deal with this.

Side: Because it is gross
1 point

Marriage was historically a financial transaction, primarily. The centrality of religion came somewhat later. But long enough ago to explain the current religious fanaticism around controlling it, which was your broader point.

Side: Who cares
1 point

Personally, I believe that people should choose who they marry. I'm not talking about a man having multiple wives or a person trying to marry a thirteen year old. This is not a gate way to have man kind getting married to dogs. This is letting a man, or woman, choose to marry whomever they choose. As long as they are consenting adults.

Side: Who cares

We are asked to be a witness on an officially documented that becomes public record, refusal is the separation made clear by objection. If we do not object we are incriminated into a crime by agreement. That is not described to us by the people who are publicly plagiarizing the term marriage. This crime becomes part of public record.

In all fairness a witness should be given a common defense to Constitutional separation. Two additional titles for likelihood to substitute the title marriage, BiniVir and Unosmulier they are impartial separations based on basic principle and legal precedent.

Side: Who cares
1 point

I personally don't care, I'd just like to let them live in joy and love, and accept them as a part of our society. It's not that they want us to be gay, it's just that some people likes to apply their personal beliefs on others.

Side: Who cares
1 point

I don't care. The benefits are needed so unless they want to take those government benefits out of marriage and just make it a union then marriage should be between two consenting adults.

Those who aren't for it are usually projecting their own issues into someone else's business.

Side: Who cares
1 point

The Sword Swallowers and the Carpet Munchers are free to do what they will !

Side: Who cares

They're consenting adults, anyway. I don't see why even state should have the right and authority to prevent them from getting married, and on this website we have people who believe that church should have that power.

Side: Who cares

Marriage (even if you are doing it for religious reasons) is essentially choosing to be with one person for the rest of your life, and receiving a government approved document that states this fact.

If two gay people want to be together for the rest of their lives, they will be, whether marriage is legal or not. So if that's the case, why should gay people not have the same opportunity as straight people?

Additionally, how does the concept of two people of the same gender getting married, in ANY way, hurt you personally?

Difference in opinion should never impede on law or equality.

Side: Who cares
1 point

Don't ask. Don't tell. Don't care.

The only people who have any reason to care are the people involved, provided the only people involved are consenting adults.

I have a very conservative view. I think I am typical in this. Most conservatives I have ever heard talk about it (except the religious crazies) also don't care.

I don't particularly care about anyone's individual choice unless:

-It is happening on my property.

-I have to pay for it.

-It creates an involuntary obligation on anyone's part.

-It impacts the physical space of anyone against his/her will.

Side: Who cares

I don't really care if gays want to express their constitutional right to get married.

Whatever makes them happy I say.

Side: Who cares
2 points

Do you think you have the right to keep men from having 30 wives?

Are you starting to grasp the slippery slope? If you force every State to allow Gay marriage, then you must allow every other unnatural group to do the same. Where will it end?

The obvious normal and best marriage is between one man and one woman. It has been the best common sense way to raise our children.

Side: Because it is gross
JaceCarsonne(93) Disputed
2 points

"Do you think you have the right to keep men from having 30 wives?"

- No. In fact, polygamy is illegal in the US. But like EVERYTHING else that eventually becomes illegal, people find a loophole to do it anyway (as the "Sister Wives" show). This day and age, it is next to impossible to completely rid the country of a social aspect by making it illegal.

"Are you starting to grasp the slippery slope? If you force every State to allow Gay marriage, then you must allow every other unnatural group to do the same. Where will it end?"

- This is starting to sound way too much like a conspiracy theory. How does allowing one social group a privilege they were denied before, connect to letting others do the same? Plus, what exactly is marriage? It's you, basically vowing to be in a relationship with the same person until you're dead, and declaring that with a government document. If two gay people want to be together for the rest of their lives, they're GOING to be together for the rest of their lives. And without having to give up 50% of their money to the other person. If they're going to be together anyway, what purpose does inequality of marriage serve?

"The obvious normal and best marriage is between one man and one woman."

- This is an opinion. There is no social situation where you can say something is the "best" of something, and have it be purely factual. So if this is your opinion, fine. Opinions aren't chosen. So here's what you do... Don't marry another man.

"It has been the best common sense way to raise our children."

- I know several gay couples who have adopted kids, and are excellent parents. The kids are well taken care of, learning moral values, and being prepared for life, like any other family. Additionally, is your argument ACTUALLY out of concern for children being brought up in the world? What if two gay people want to get married and choose to never involve having a kid? Then is it okay with you? Or are you taking the marginal case and using it as an excuse to try and justify your argument as a whole?

Side: Who cares
FromWithin(8241) Disputed
1 point

People like you always know some one in a million committed Gay relationship. Most of is see the sex swapping gay parties and the spread of HIV, etc.

It matters not either of us say, it comes down to biolgy and what is natural and normal. This is what we should be teaching our children, and after they grow up they can decide for themselves.

We should never teach our kids to experiment with unnatural things. We should raise them up in the norms of society. Controversial issues should not be sanctioned as normal and nattural no matter how much Gays want to pretend it is.

Side: Because it is gross
Jace(5222) Disputed
1 point

Why do you care if a man has 30 wives? Seriously, what's it to you what other people choose to do with their own lives? When and how did your God confer this active moral authority upon you in particular?

Side: Who cares
JustTruth(127) Disputed
1 point

Stop lying. That would be po lygsmy and you all claimed that same sex marriage was not a slippery slope leading to polygamy and incest marriage.

When and how did your devil Satan infer this active immoral authrotity upon you in particular?

Side: Because it is gross
Mint_tea(4641) Disputed
1 point

Are you worried that if a man has the right to have 30 wives legally then it will free you to having more than one as well and that's a temptation for you? No? Then why do you care if there are two consenting adults who love each other and want to get married, and they are the same sex?

Side: Who cares
FromWithin(8241) Disputed
1 point

This has NOTHING to do with me. I know where my values lie and I would not choose to do things that are unnatural just because an activist Government makes it legal.

If they legalized killing one year old babies, would you be ok with that? Would you kill your one year old baby if you got tired of her and it was now legal?

I have the brains to see what is happening to our families since this fixation on LGBTQXYZABCDEFG groups. I care for our children and hate it when Government teaches them that anything goes and that any type of sexual orientation is naturral and normal.

Side: Because it is gross
JustTruth(127) Disputed
1 point

Are you worried that by a man not being allowed to marry another man, then you will be denied your true love. You think that you can judge marriages by what you determine, like consenting adult. There are no federal mandates for consenting adults. A 15 year old child in California, who can not have sex until 18, can have an avldtion without parental or adult consent.

You liberals make laws designed to abuse and violate children.

Side: Because it is gross
1 point

We are w asking them to hear reason and logic. They claim there is no slippery slope, but we see it now with pedophiles. Why not allow loopholes to get married, so that their lets can inherit everything and have spousal health insurance. It is discrimination, because they love whomthry love.

Side: Because it is gross
marcusmoon(576) Disputed
1 point

You do not sound like an actual American conservative.

In fact, you sound like some Democrat or far left crazy because, as Democrats so often do, you did not actually answer the question (Why do YOU care if same sex marriage is legal?) but instead referred you to why you think it is a bad idea if every state legalizes it.

Face it, lots of bad ideas are legal. For example it is legal to dance on your roof in your underwear while covered head to toe in ranch dressing. (Do you grasp the slippery slope? if we allow that, we must allow people covered in every other unnatural condiment to do the same. Where will it end?)

The fact that it is dangerous, foolish, and some people think it is icky has never justified illegalizing it. As a result, even the Democrats have never suggested allowing the government to start regulating condiment dancing. Hell, they have not even mandated that the taxpayers subsidize catsup and mustard appreciation programs in order to limit the ranch dressing dancing. (Too many have Ranch privilege.)

The question is what is YOUR MOTIVATION to be against it. What stake do YOU have in what these other people do?

Side: Who cares
FromWithin(8241) Disputed
1 point

Are you purposely being deceptive or are you that ignorant to the written word?

I made it VERY CLEAR that my opposition to sanctioning LGBT issues as normal to our children (which is exactly what Gay marriage does), is that our children deserve to be taught the normal biological functions of our bodies between a man and woman.

THIS IS WHY I CARE IF GAY MARRIAGE IS LEGALIZED!

These unnatural abnormal controversial sexual orientations should not be lifted up to our children as normal!

LGBT people should also not be bullied or ridiculed for their lifestyles to our chidren.

These subjects are not things to be spoken about in schools, and should not be sanctioned as normal by forcing every state to change their marriage laws.

To your other lame example, I also do not want society sanctioning people dancing on rooftops covered with ranch dressing (which is the only dressing I enjoy), as being a naturral normal thing.

Can you grasp this simple concept. We should stay clear of indoctrinating our children with unnatural controversial subjects. They will grow up and decide for themselves.

If my daughter grows up and dances on a roof top covered in Blue cheese dressing, I will be very saddend :)

Side: Because it is gross
Atrag(5666) Disputed
1 point

The phrase "slippery slope" is often followed by "fallacy" you should look it up.

"Oh dont let people drive cars!!! Next they will want to drive their chairs down the steet!!! Its utter madness!!!"

Side: Who cares
Atrag(5666) Disputed
1 point

Are you starting to grasp the slippery slope? If you force every State to allow Gay marriage, then you must allow every other unnatural group to do the same. Where will it end?

If the only argument against anything else is "you cant do that because its unnatural" then yes, absolutely. However things that have other arguments against them, such as bigamy, need not be allowed.

The obvious normal and best marriage is between one man and one woman.

So you think by making homosexual marriage illegal you will cause gay men to get married and have children? Newsflash: the word is overpopulated!! A few people NOT getting married and having kids is better for everyone.

Side: Who cares
FromWithin(8241) Disputed
1 point

The world is over populated for a reason. It's called promiscuous sex with no self restraint, and not being bothered with birth control, etc.

It's called what happens to a world that has lost it's moral compass.

Go down to the welfare roles and count how many abndoned children have no fathers at home.

Side: Because it is gross
1 point

Dude obviously we as a whole are not keeping women from men if it is legal or not they will still be gay. I don't fully agree with it either but why should we have the right to tell a human what to do. Do you believe in America when we say we are free. We are the best country and when we say we are free in America why do you have to tell people why they should or shouldn't get married. Do we really want more rampages if we take their rights away us Americans would be hypocrites because it is a free country.

Side: Who cares
FromWithin(8241) Disputed
2 points

Dude, stop being such a hypocrite with double standards.

The Left and the Democrat Party are the biggest control fanatics of our lifetime.

They say we no longer have a right to conceiled handguns.

We no longer have a right to freely choose to have a nativity scene on our public land.

People no longer have a right to freely smoke in some Parks.

We no longer have a right to not pay to kill unborn babies.

Our daughters no longer have a right to privacy from so called Transgender boys in their own public school bathrooms.

We no longer have a voice in our own States to vote and decide on issues such as how our marriage laws work. One Left wing Judge can over ride an entire State's freedom to create their own marriage laws.

Do you want to now take away the freedom of States to not allow men having 30 wives? Why would you tell people they can not have 30 wives?

Businesses are constantly told how they can run their own company do to petty regulations from the Left.

The worst one of all is when the Left took away a baby's right to life. Why are you not screaming about that fact? You are a hypocrite to cherry pick which rights you care about.

Don't talk to me about which side takes away more freedoms. The Right want's the freedom of the people to decide their own State laws, not one activist Liberal judge.

Side: Because it is gross
1 point

Besides being an abomination, dirty, perversion, allowing legal establishment of same sex couples and saying they are married gives them legal and financial rights which cost money from employers and taxpayers, forcing people to violate their conscience and support sin.

Homosexuals do not need any legal marriage, they can draw up their own personal contracts for life or distribution of their estates or whatever........but to give them the same tax and employment benefit status as holy matrimony is forcing others to support their sin.

Marriage has it's privileges, and it should, as the family is the foundation of society. The foundation is cracking, America has lost it's mind to allow same sex perverts to call themselves married and enjoy the benefits provided for the foundation of society which is the family.

Homosexuals did not engage in the battle for marriage rights because of romantic ideals, it was for the money and they are forcing me, by taxes and increased cost of goods as companies extend benefits to spouses, to support their sin........adding to the coming judgement of God on America as His anger builds against a country increasingly turned away from and against Him.

Side: Because it is gross
1 point

I agree. It is simply a behavior but we have been forced to use the labor like it is a group. Should same sex couipkes have the legal right to procreate and have children? Why not? Opposite sex couples have that right? Should a lesbian have the legal right to impregnate another lesbian with her egg and procreate a child? A man can impregnate a woman and get her pregnant.

How about a man who has 21 children by 21 women, shouldn't he have the right to marry all 21 and give each child a normal home?

Side: Because it is gross
marcusmoon(576) Disputed
1 point

THANK YOU! I appreciate that you are using material realities to support your argument instead of just leaning on arguments based on religious/moral tenets.

I still do not care about other people's marriages, but I can totally see how your opinion is actually based in your objective self- interest and verifiable realities. It actually makes sense that you would care about same sex marriage, regardless of your religious beliefs.

I have a different solution:

1 - Simplify and revise the tax code to make the number of dependents immaterial

2 - Eliminate the social welfare programs (including those that relate to marriage, like social security)

3 - Eliminate Government civilian employee pensions in favor of 401k style retirement systems. Most of the private sector has already done that, so marriage status is irrelevant for employer cost.

4 - Limit the employer obligation to whatever the employer & employee voluntarily agree upon as incentive/compensation. That is between the employer and the employee. If both parties agree-fine. If the prospective employee does not like the parameters of the compensation package, he/she is free to find a different job where the employer has a different compensation/benefits offering. Employers will continue to use things like benefits packages to compete with each other for the employees they want/need.

Personally, I don't buy into the judgment and religious fervor, and I certainly do not think who marries whom is the main crack in the American societal foundation.

The flaw that is undermining our society's social health and future prosperity is unmarried/uncommitted parents. 40% of American kids are born out of wedlock, (50% of Hispanic kids & 80% of black kids). Most of these kids are raised in single parent households most without fathers being more than nominally involved. A whopping 70-80% of inner city kids are being raised in single parent homes. (https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/three-simple-rules-poor-teens-should-follow-to-join-the-middle-class/) A large percentage of these are on government assistance.

Related to the unmarried parent issue, over 21% of the US population is on Government assistance (https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-97.html). Most of these programs are primarily or exclusively for children and parents.

By contrast, homosexuals/bisexuals are only 2-3% of the US population, and an even smaller percentage are in a same-sex marriage. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/07/15/what-percentage-of-the-u-s-population-is-gay-lesbian-or-bisexual/?utm_term=.2eb323eae18f)

Gay marriage accounts for a much smaller financial impact to our society than do single parents accessing the public welfare programs. The direct social impact is also smaller, or would be were it not for the propaganda campaigns.

Kids growing up without dad's is a much greater problem to society.

Side: Who cares
NowASaint(1380) Clarified
1 point

All law is based on religious/moral tenets and can be wrong or right, just or unjust. People are faulty and when they establish laws not in accord with objective truth, those laws will be unjust and immoral. If you claim your idea of law is secular, then it is your own mind which is being placed on a pedestal as your god and you are being religious thinking you are justified by your own existence to be exonerated in death and exempt from the fire of Hell.

It is your solution, by your own words, which is based on self-interest and not on objective truth. There is no such thing as "objective self-interest"; you are using an oxymoron which gives no credibility to your ideas as your personal self-interest may by and for yourself be considered objective while in direct conflict with my self-interest. Self-interest which is not subjective to truth is evil no matter how it may appear to be benevolent.

All of your political ideas are changeable without objective truth. Whether you buy into "judgement and religious fervor" or not, in reality you are being religious trying to justify yourself to roam outside of the fire of Hell, and in reality you are failing.

Sodomy, including all homosexuality, is a great evil which ruins lives and costs society a lot more money than what you are accounting for as it is spread primarily through molestation of children. Why you want to sweep garbage under the rug and promote your own ideas of righteousness is a mystery except for the natural tendency of sinners to exalt themselves thinking they have the right to exist outside of Hell.

I'm sure whatever statistics you are presenting are homosexual propaganda in accordance with your "hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil" ideas about the evils of homosexuality, so I wont' bother investigating them. Your stats reek of sodomites who do all they can to hide the evil of their perversion.

Side: Who cares
1 point

Because its implications go far beyond just gay "marriage".

Side: Because it is gross