- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
That is irrelevant to the premise of which the topic of debate- which is involved with that of a woman's problem. It does not matter which gender invented a label for the word of controlled argumentation- debating is based solely on topical matters, and males in this current topic of debate are not as entitled to debate about what they will never experience first-hand, in a first-person perspective as they are not women.
Under that logic, then one can commit murderous deeds because on has been born with the killer gene. Instead, we are to control ourselves and become the opposite of who we have physically born as.
You have it wrong. The killer gene is just a name for which people act more physically and violently than the rest of the populace. It is much easier to control a violent nature. Homosexuality is different, just like how you cannot simply change the nature of a straight woman/man to like the opposite sex. It is a large characteristic that determines who you are, and it cannot be changed unless you alter your whole biology which is impossible to do, unless accompanied by future technologies.
It's also just the same with people born with retardation- you simply cannot change their nature. Hypocrite.
I don't understand what you are trying to ask. One can find his or her mate attractive along with being able to touch and kiss him or her.
But you denied all sexual relations to exist before marriage.
Love does not require a sexual component to it. Therefore, it is not equivalent. Homosexual relations do not require love.
Do you not think heterosexuals and homosexuals should have equal rights in marriage? Both heterosexuals and homosexuals are human; they both share the same 'love'.
That is what I am saying; it should be equal, it should be fair. They are born different without their will, so restricting their rights is unjustifiable.
That is a red herring.
It isn't a red herring; having sexual relations with a child is wrong to have, knowing they are not fully developed human beings to have sex at all.
Another red herring.
Animals are completely
Yet again, love does not require sexual relations. Love and list are separate.
Shouldn't of used the word 'love'.
I meant to say 'love' with the context of what is shared between both heterosexual and homosexual couples; what drives them to get married and start a family. And I would also want you to become aware of the financial benefits occupied with marriage.
Neither are heterosexuals.
Heterosexuals are allowed to have sex, and gain the benefits of marriage. Homosexuals are not, which is quite oppressive, knowing that it isn't their choice.
The only way anyone can have sexual relations is through marriage, which is how God intended it to be, which is good and holy.
So, no finding a mate attractive? No touching or kissing? That is not scientifically how human beings work in the real world.
For example, if I have the desire to murder, then, according to this logic, I should be allowed to murder, simply under the premise of my inclination to want something.
Murder is a far-fetched example of a basic human right to love.
Well, then one must include pedophilia
Sexually undeveloped and immature human beings.
Socially unaware animals.
As long as it involves two consenting adults, it shouldn't really be much of an issue. Love is love.
against my personal beliefs, does not mean that I cannot respect the right of other people to their freedom of belief and choice in their lives.
Believing in freedom of belief defeats the flawed morality of religion. Maybe you should consider just which belief is more important, and more viable. The ignorance and intolerance of old ideologies, or the enlightenment of unbiased, free thinking.
You are not acting like God when you come to accept other people's beliefs, you are acting better than God- in relation to the God that is envisioned in the bible. He has committed mass genocide for no morally justifiable reason at all- which is quite fallacious, since he is meant to be portrayed as the epitome of morality; the counterpart of the devil.
But you do know, it contradicts your religion, which was what I was trying to say all this time. I have no idea where you came up with calling me an anti-choice troll.
The message you sent me was irrelevant to what I was trying to say; your religion is incorrect about being anti-gay.
I concur, the sexuality of an individual is not of the individual's consent. A person who is born Homosexual has not done so willingly- therefore any issues a God may have with that person for being homosexual should not be reason to oppress them or judge them from what they are, since it is not their fault that they are what they were born to be.
I was intending to logically debate your disagreement with homosexuals. I already know you support choice, I'm not blind. Stop trying to place this into my argument. Homosexuals have no choice of their sexual orientation therefore it is not their fault, not their sin.
I am debating that it should not be considered a sin, I have made that clear enough.
Clearly you did not read my argument correctly.
I am debating.
No you are not. You are avoiding my argument, saying that 'we mustn't talk about disputing each others beliefs' even though we should be, since this is a debate site.
Yoppu lied and said that I was saying that homosexuality is a choice which is a complete fucking lie.
What? How did I lie? Maybe you should calm down. I was using evidence and facts to show that Homosexuality is not a choice therefore logically stating that it is not a sin to be gay, since they did not choose to be gay.
You are just another antichoice troll with nothing better to do than spew complete bullshit.
Since when have a been antichoice about anything? Since when did I troll? Why are you so fucking ignorant.
Do yourself a favor and by a clue. I would by you a clue myself to shut you up
I find it fucking annoying that you would go this far, just from a simple argument which holds nothing but unbiased FACT.
I disagree with same sex marriage
I just want to say; homosexuality isn't a choice- people don't choose to be ridiculed for the rest of their lives and have their rights taken off them. There have even been people, who have taken their own lives because of being gay. If it was a choice, it would mean that everyone is a bisexual, who must suppress their homosexual side.
Homosexuality is a biological/psychological condition at birth- it is not a choice. This means that, people who are born homosexual are in no way being sinful. If it is just the act of homosex which God finds sinful, he is being oppressive, and is denying a most basic human right- for utterly no viable reason.
Don't disrespect Michael Jackson; he was a great man who was abused in his childhood, and was further abused by the media; spreading nasty, outlandish rumors.
Homosexuality is nothing like pedophillia or cannibalism; it is the consensual relationship between two developed adults who happen to be of the same sex. Cannibalism is an act of assault which really can hurt people, and pedophilla can destroy the lives of children who are not fully developed in maturity and sexuality.
Literally hundreds of animal species have been observed to have homosexuals- which means it is a natural occurrence.
When it is of two consenting adults, it is fine. When it involves children and adults- who are not fully developed, it is crossing a line. When it involves an animal- who is not as socially aware as a human, it is crossing a line.
So basically, it should only be a consensual relationship between two developed beings.
I think magic would be awesome, and would make life all the more interesting if it did exist.
But there's no direct proof of its existence, but it hasn't been proven false yet, so I've yet to wait. I know this sounds terribly illogical, but I've got to keep open to the possibilities...
(Btw hello CreateDebate, it's been a while...)