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.
Shouldn't we round up all the Jews and put them in a state? Then round up all of the Catholics and give them a state? Put all of the Muslims in their own state? Etc. Wouldn't that eliminate all of the conflicts you imagine?
Thankfully the Mormons started it off and took Utah.
Well we could do that. If you don't want them to have there own state than are you willing to let them be with there partner and make it legal than because they all deserve just not get married because you cant change the true meaning of marriage.
I don't remember where in the Bible God said marriage was between a man and a woman ... as long as they feel like being together. God said it is forever. We already changed the definition of marriage.
Well we could do that.
Do you think it is a good idea to separate all of the states by religious affiliation?
willing to let them be with there partner and make it legal
The government isn't able to stop it when people live together. What makes you think they will be able to do anything when the people are separated? Way to not address my argument or make it clear what you are even talking about.
The government is set up to stop killing right now and that isn't under control to your liking. What makes you think having the responsibility of protecting the borders of the people you rounded up will be any easier?
I agree. They should just all move to a state together and run it. It would be a lot essayer then trying to change very states rules and hurting other religion unions.
It would even help them out a lot because if every one around has different feeling than it would be just like normal to have in there state and they don't have to hide it at all.
I agree. They should just all move to a state together and run it. It would be a lot essayer then trying to change very states rules and hurting other religion unions.
Yeah, right, it is so much easier to relocate millions of people.
It never ceases to amaze me how insecure conservative heterosexuals are in their marriages that they feel so terribly threatened by the unrelated relationships of other people.
Trust me, straight people do not need gays to frak up their religious unions anyways; you all do just fine on your own.
It would even help them out a lot because if every one around has different feeling than it would be just like normal to have in there state and they don't have to hide it at all.
Or, you know, maybe people like you could stop being bigots so that gays don't feel the need to hide who they are. Oh, sorry, that would require you to be a decent human being. My bad. It makes way more sense to just get rid of everyone you do not like. Worked for the Japanese and the Jews, did it not? Seriously, do you not realize how disturbing your advocacy is?
Ok, so you don't want to follow what your debate description says. "be put" means they have no choice to be in any other state.
So, it seems like you want to create an "Indian reservation" for gays. They can make their own rules inside the gay reservation, but have to live by "normal" rules outside the reservation. But, that still destroys holy union, but at least you won't have to be near the icky gays.
Gays, lesbians, and zoophilia Should live there but if they go out side of state they would have to live by normal rules. It will not destroy the holy union because they don't have to marry any gay. If one choose to get equalmarr than they have to make there own church. Yes we don't have to be near them.
Gays, lesbians, and zoophilia Should live there but if they go out side of state they would have to live by normal rules.
That would be a gay reservation, not what the debate title suggests.
It will not destroy the holy union because they don't have to marry any gay.
Gays will get married in the reservation which is still part of your country. God has domain over the entire universe. Moving gays that are damaging His holy union away from you won't appease God at all.
If one choose to get equalmarr than they have to make there own church. Yes we don't have to be near them.
Why can't they just have their own weddings outside of your churches now and be near you?
They would be the equals that's what they would be called and it would include gays, lesbians, and zoophilia.
Stop giving it stupid labels. Your debate title says that we round up all the gays and send them somewhere. You don't actually believe we should do that.
I think your right but we also can't keep them from living together because that will be against there free will.
You are trying to do that with this anti marriage stuff.
Because it's not there state and they can only get equalmarr in there state only.
Your complaint was that they are forcing your churches. But, if they don't force your church to do anything, what is the problem?
I don't believe we should do anything but it would be idea that we could do I'm just trying to find the pro's and con's to doing it.
They can get whatever as long as we don't have to marry them but that still does not fix the problem of the zoophilia or us from picking on the gays and zoophilia.
but it would be idea that we could do I'm just trying to find the pro's and con's to doing it.
0 pros and many cons. Sounds like a bad idea. It's funny because this conversation started because you said that no one would find any cons.
They can get whatever as long as we don't have to marry them but that still does not fix the problem of the zoophilia or us from picking on the gays and zoophilia.
Well, I don't know what to do about Zoophiles. But, we shouldn't ship out gays because you don't like Zoophiles. Hopefully churches won't be forced to marry gays. I don't know though.
I agree. There are still some pro's like not being picked on or who they are is natural to them and there society.
We could make zoophilia legal and let them get married out side of church too. I love both of them because I love everybody but I just don't want the government to force are churches to marry them.
I agree. There are still some pro's like not being picked on or who they are is natural to them and there society.
You guys will still condemn them. They just have some distance in between the jerks. Plus, you and people like not being a douche any more will also fix that problem.
We could make zoophilia legal and let them get married out side of church too. I love both of them because I love everybody but I just don't want the government to force are churches to marry them.
I like how you want to lump zoophilia in with the gays just so that you can dismiss the gays. You keep bringing up churches like an idiot. That's like me saying I want Catholics locked up because I am afraid of aliens. If you send gays to a new state churches won't have to marry them. If you let gays stay where they are, churches won't have to marry them.
I'm bring zoophilia up because you keep not bring it up. This debate is about the both of them and there sin. I was just saying it would be good for us and them if we just stay away from each other and make there sex life legal and be done with it.
It's a fact that if you stop being a douche the world will be a better place.
I'm bring zoophilia up because you keep not bring it up.
Zoophilia only belongs in this conversation because they are another group of people you don't like. That's like me saying "The Mormons have crazy marriage beliefs, let's ship the Mormons and Catholics to their own state because they are both religious."
This debate is about the both of them and there sin.
And, conveniently, not any of your sin.
I was just saying it would be good for us and them if we just stay away from each other and make there sex life legal and be done with it.
I like zoophilia and gay does not and or the holy union.
Ok they can live with us but they should stop forcing are churches to marry them. I have no problem make zoophilia and gay legal but not marriage in are church.
Awesome, that's a good start. Now, continue with your transformation of not being a douche.
I like zoophilia and gay does not and or the holy union.
I can't argue when I don't see English.
Ok they can live with us but they should stop forcing are churches to marry them. I have no problem make zoophilia and gay legal but not marriage in are church.
I wasn't being one, but please explain why you think I was. Plus, which Zoophilia debate are you talking about.
You are a douche because you want to move all the people you don't like to a different state instead of ignoring them when they aren't doing anything to you.
Ok, maybe in the first one. But, that's because the guy keeps creating these debates. I was civil with him the first 5 times he created the same debate, then I started being mean to get him to stop discussing a topic that he has already brought up. It was directed at an individual who was doing something wrong, not a group of people.
In the second one I explained to him how people would consider Zoophilia bad. That's not being a douche. That's having a discussion.
Ok I see sorry I agree with you. I'm sorry I seem mean. I'm just telling you how Christians and other relious views on it and why it would be a good idea.
They can have equality and make a word called equalmarr and it will be something like marriage. They would not be picked on or be scared to sure how they feel and the state will sale cheep homes so they can move there.
If they were running their own state/nation, they would have zero need or inclination to use a term like 'equalmarr.' More likely, they would simply just call it marriage, and naysayers in other states/nations could cry moar!
I agree with you that this guy is an idiot, but why drag religion into this? I can see how you would think that they are Christians and some don't like gay people because of the Bible, but it is just as rude as anyone agreeing with all gays getting their own state. Not all Christians are horrible people, too. My best friend is one and she is the nicest person I have ever met. She accepts everyone no matter what. Your comment was out of line and rude.
Again, not every Christian feels that way. In fact every Christian I know doesn't want them to die. One of them is gay! You are being very stereotypical and that bothers me.
Well, I hope you are right. This guy never claimed he wanted them all dead until just now. Hopefully you and your friends aren't hiding something deep down.
You are right, his post shows how cruel some Christians can be.
Actually, homosexuality is a sin deserving of eternal death, according to the Bible. I don't think they should be rounded up and put in a state of their own, either. Zoophilia? Not sure exactly what that is. Someone who lusts after zoos and zoo animals, maybe? Perhaps made illegal.
I am not and never have been zoophobic. I held my present views on zoophilia well before goodmale came along. On the first CD debate on the subject I was one of the first and only people to point out that no one has any objective reasons for making it illegal. I was not converted, and given that the premise of my anti-illegalization stance is objective and founded it really cannot be considered trolling.
This is to help gays, zoophilia and help the holy union at the same time. I'm not against anybody being who they are but I'm just trying to let them live a better life with to hurting other people.
Why would anyone ever think such a awful thought? That does not define you, there is so much more to a person. Would you find all of the Catholics and give them their own state? No. Would you find all black people and give them their own state? No. Would you find all football fans and give them their own state? No. It's not moral and plain rude to say something like that. They are people, however I don't think anyone who agrees with this is.
