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.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#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.
Addition of an amendment to define marriage.
With the addition of the Obergefell v. Hodges case last summer, same-sex marriage was legalized nationwide. Since then, a large amount of opposition to the case has appeared, such as those such as Kim Davis, who have refused to marry same-sex couples in the name of religious freedom. Some places have even stopped giving out marriage licenses altogether. Possibly the most popular method, however, would be the support of a Constitutional amendment that would define marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman, similar to the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996. Doing so would override the Obergefell v Hodges decision. Would you support this amendment?
Yes. The Constitution should be amended to reflect the view of the American people and State's rights. Obergefell v. Hodges redefined marriage to impose same-sex marriage upon unwilling Americans and cater to a small minority, ignoring the will of individual states and the majority.
Almost all polls show national approval for same-sex marriage, so why should the Constitution be amended in a way that would run contrary to other constitutional amendments in order to appease a minority opinion?
Do you not believe the Due Process and Equal Protections Clauses are important?
Additionally, do you not believe in the validity of the separation of powers, as it relates to the purpose of the Supreme Court?
You may know that I'm for same-sex marriage, but I might as well argue against it. Might as well know both sides of the argument, though.
Even if polls show national approval for same-sex marriage, that doesn't make it correct. Same-sex marriage is radically different when compared to the traditional marriage. Marriage, as a unit society, was established for the purpose of procreation. Extending this unit of marriage to same-sex couples undermines the natural purpose of marriage and the sexual fidelity is represents.
America was founded in Judeo-Christian values, which heavily emphasize the importance of a sacred relationship between one man and one woman.
There is no middle of the road option so I would propose that we decouple the word "marriage" from religion OR from the government/state. Right now religion and the government/state use the same word but they have conflicting definitions for that word. This is the source of the conflict.
The objection to gay marriage seems to stem from religion. So, we can tell religion that they need to come up with a new word, or we tell government that they need to come up with a new word. Or the dictionary may include both definitions and then people will then argue, "well, I meant this definition not that one," thus creating confusion.
Amending the constitution will just piss off one group because it would be forcing a specific definition on the one group instead of seeking a solution that is more amicable to both groups. In other words, amending the constitution will only create winners and losers and the losers are not going to be happy. Even if it forces people to comply with the law, after the amendment, the debate will still continue.
My interpretation is the Supreme Court ruling last year has legalized gay marriage.
I would assume that this ruling refers to a 'civil marriage' which is not sanctioned nor blessed by the Christian Church.
As the Christian faith is based on the scriptures of the Holy Bible which describes same gender relationships as an,''abomination'', it must be obvious that as a consequence of this Supreme Court ruling, the State has already divorced itself from it's religious shackles and therefore no change to the constitution is necessary.
You claim, "therefore no change to the constitution is necessary." However, you have posted in favor of making a constitutional amendment; it appears you have posted on the wrong side of the argument.
I guess you're correct, but as my computer skills are not sufficiently well honed to make the physical switch could you please try to imagine that I have transferred my (Antrim / Winklepicker) post to the correct side. Close your eyes and concentrate hard, yes that's it.
My slant on the issue remains the same regardless of it's positioning.
Do people actually think Gays want to be married? LOL, even heterosexuals today are refusing marriage for living together.
Activist Gays simply want to have their lifestyles sanctioned as normal by forcing laws on every state and denyng the people's voice.
Newsflash, take biology once more and learn what is normal and what is abnormal.
Our bodies are designed for a man and woman having sex, not two men!
There is no need for marriage between two men when they could have covered all their concerns and right's of partners with civil unions. These forced marriage laws had nothing to do with partner right's they speak so much to.
THEY WANT TO BE SANCTIONED AS NORMAL! Sorry, it will never be no matter how many laws you force down people's throats.
I'm not judging anyone and I could not care less what people do in their bedrooms.
What I do care about is our nation's freedom to dissagree with the PC Big Brother collective telling us all how to think.
We once had individual state's rights that could dissagree with issues and form their own laws regarding such matters.
NO LONGER! Our courts are now flled with Liberal activist judges and justices forcing Americans to think as they think.
Now you will hear the Progressive fools on this site compare homosexuality to a person's skin color. LOL, I grow tired of debating such activist control fanatics.
You don't have to necessarily agree with gay marriage, but if you are true to what you say,
"I'm not judging anyone and I could not care less what people do in their bedrooms", then you should agree that giving homosexuals the right to marry is the right thing to do.
As for the "it's not natural" argument: if it's not natural, then why do people have those desires? If people could chose between being gay and straight, it's pretty obvious what they'd choose. You are correct, our bodies are designed so that procreation can occur between a man and a women, but that doesn't mean we should prevent gay sex.
You want to know what's "normal?" Sea otters will kill baby seals and store them, then raping them every now and then until they decay. That's normal. However, lots of things in our society aren't "normal", at least biologically speaking.
You're acting like "PC Big Brother" is trying to make you marry a gay person or even agree with gay marriage. You don't have to, but you should at least allow gay marriage.
You even quoted me when I said I could not care less what people do in their bedrooms.... and what did you STILL SAY?
You said and i quote....."but that doesn't mean we should prevent gay sex." as if I were suggesting such a thing.
WHO IS SAYING TO PREVENT GAY SEX?????????????????? It is abnormal just as it is abnormal to do many things in life. No one wants to ban abnormal activity(that hurts no one)... we want to prevent the Left from sanctioning weird abnormal things as normal to our children.
I truly tire of wasting my time with deceptive people!
Big Brother is FORCING every State to change their marriage laws under threat from the courts!
Lets allow a man to have 20 wives ok? Lets FORCE every state to allow any small group of people to change our laws on their say so ok?
Just because some groups thinks their lifestyles are normal does not mean we all must accomodate their lifestyles by changing our marriage laws.
A marriage between a man and woman is good for our society. Pyscologists say it is better for kids to be raised by a mother and father....not two men who adopted them. We have huge waiting lists of husband and wives wanting to adopt unwanted children.
We as a nation shoud always lift up what is best for society, what is best for children.
Don't believe the constant lies from the Left when they say Christians and conservatives hate Gays. COMPLETE LIE!
We hate when Gay activists and Lberals want to force their political correctness down our throats purely for political reasons. Obama and Hillary were both against Gay marriage a few years ago. IT'S ALL POLITICS!
They are phonies and using the LGBT community for votes.
Growing up under a Christian household, I understand that there is a large difference between hating gay people and not wanting to allow gay marriage. I do believe that some Christians and conservatives genuinely hate gays, but not all of them by a long shot. In fact, I believe that most of them are just trying to advocate for what they believe in, which I respect. I just believe that they have been misguided.
As for Hillary and Obama, that very may well just be politics and pandering when they suddenly support gay rights. I'm not sure if you're claiming that gay rights in general are "politics", but if you are, the main goal is equal rights for marriage.
As for preventing gay sex, I do apologize for assuming your position. That was irrational for me t o say that you would prevent something that you had not even mentioned.
"Big Brother is FORCING every State to change their marriage laws under threat from the courts!"
"Just because some groups thinks their lifestyles are normal does not mean we all must accomodate their lifestyles by changing our marriage laws."
This is what I would like to address. You seem to have a problem with the so-called Big Brother forcing you to 'accomodate' gay lifestyles, but that's not whats happening. If you don't believe gay marriage is moral, that's fine. If you don't want to go to gay weddings, that's fine. If you are prejudiced against gay people, you're still allowed to do that to, you have those rights. In my opinion doing those things would make you an asshole, but you still have that choice.
You act like its some big deal for states to change their laws to allow gay marriage, but it's not some 'Big-Brother'-like scenario that you make it out to be. The only change that was made was that gay marriage was now legal in all states, which essentially was "forcing" states to give gay couples equal protection under the law. Allowing gay couples to marry doesn't take any of your rights away, and a gay couple marrying doesn't do any harm to you.
It doesn't matter whether or not you think it's "normal", no one cares. Gay people think their lifestyle is normal, but all they want is the right to marry. They're not asking you to kiss their feet or attend their weddings, or do pretty much anything that would "accomodate" their lifestyle.
EDIT: "No one wants to ban abnormal activity(that hurts no one)... we want to prevent the Left from sanctioning weird abnormal things as normal to our children."
I'd like to add onto this. What do you define as "normal?" Personally, I think that same-sex relationships should be included in sex education, just like straight relationships are. It should be talked about, as it's beneficial to gay children (especially those who may have grown up believing that being gay is wrong) and can help sort out identity issues and similar things.
From what I've seen, the Left is not trying to market gay sex to any young children, they just want to say that being gay is something that can happen too, just like being straight is. When the time comes to learn about sex and safe sex, it follows that gay sex should be talked about too.
You did not address my remarks concerning bigamy. Do you think a man has the equal rights to have 20, 30 wives? Bigamists will say the same things as you about their rights of marrying many women.
Did you know there are Pedophiles who believe they are also born that way and therefore believe they are normal? Some believe they should have the right to marry consenting children?
These things are not an equal right's issue. None of us have the rights to do every thing we want in life.
Many people do not like no fault divorce. Their right's, of protection from a spouse who had an affair and chooses to walk out on them and can now take half of everything they own, was stolen from them....NO MATTER WHOSE FAULT IT WAS!
I repeat, I believe homosexuality is NOT NORMAL and no way should our schools be teaching our children what some small group of activists want them to learn. Children are very impressionable, especially going through puberty, and parents have every right to protect their children from activist LGBT groups trying to change our school corriculum.
You are the people that Christians fear because you DO NOT RESPECT THEIR BELIEFS!
You, as others like Obama would force every public school to change their school corruculum, or force every public school to allow boys in girls bathrooms, etc.
People like you are why Christians and Conservtives speak out against the activist LGBT groups and those on the Left. It has nothing to do with hating any person for their lifestyles.... IT'S ALL ABOUT PROTECTING OUR RIGHTS AS PARENTS, and it's all about protecting our religious freedoms.
Were you aware that Gay activists have sued Christian Churches to permit Gay Sunday school teachers? Can you grasp why Christins speak out against the Left's agendas? The Left and Gay activists are trying to twist the Christian faith to say that Homosexuality is not a sin, and that a Church can not deny an openly Gay person to teach our children in Sunday school!
THIS IS TRULY SCARY AND TRULY ARROGANT TO TRY AND FORCE OTHERS TO CHANGE THEIR FAITH AS YOU SEE FIT.
Maybe you personally do not support forcing Churches to have Gay sunday school teachers, but there are Gay groups who do. Christians are under constant pressure to change their faith, just as our States were forced to change their marriage laws.
If Gays want respect from all Americans, then stop trying to force your views on everyone else.
"These things are not an equal right's issue. None of us have the rights to do every thing we want in life."
Let me start with this. America was quite literally founded on the ideas of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So I say, first of all, that yes, it's an equal rights issue. I'm arguing that gay people deserve the same marriage rights as straight people, so yes, it is. As for the fact that we can't do anything we want in life, I agree, as long as what you're doing isn't harmful. If a man wants to get in his car and drive to Florida for a vacation, he can, as he has those rights. As for gay people, them marrying isn't harmful either. Why shouldn't they be allowed to marry?
"People like you are why Christians and Conservtives speak out against the activist LGBT groups and those on the Left. It has nothing to do with hating any person for their lifestyles.... IT'S ALL ABOUT PROTECTING OUR RIGHTS AS PARENTS, and it's all about protecting our religious freedoms."
It does sound to me like you hate the LGBT lifestyle; that's why you're fighting against it. If it's about protecting your rights as parents, what rights are you protecting? I'm protecting the right to marriage and to have a family regardless of orientation, what are you fighting for? And your "religious freedoms?" You have the right to freedom of worship as the constitution says, but "freedom of worship" does not include "freedom to dictate how people can live their lives". You have the religious freedoms- you can pray, go to church, hand out pamphlets, start religious clubs, and so on. But that doesn't give you the right to step in with government and try to tell people that who they want to marry is incorrect. That's known as entanglement between church and state, and the constitution forbids it.
"You are the people that Christians fear because you DO NOT RESPECT THEIR BELIEFS!"
Are you kidding me? I'm doing my best to respect your beliefs by giving a detailed explanation on why I think you're wrong- I don't agree with your views, but I respect them. Me not respecting your beliefs would be me calling you an idiot simply because you're religious, which I would never do.
"Were you aware that Gay activists have sued Christian Churches to permit Gay Sunday school teachers? Can you grasp why Christins speak out against the Left's agendas? The Left and Gay activists are trying to twist the Christian faith to say that Homosexuality is not a sin, and that a Church can not deny an openly Gay person to teach our children in Sunday school!"
Yes- but I don't necessarily agree with the 'Gay activists' in this situation. I think it's on a case-by-case basis. But why should a Church have the right to deny someone a job solely on their orientation? An openly gay person can very well teach Sunday school, I don't see why them being gay would be doing any harm. What if the Church told someone that they couldn't teach Sunday school because they were a woman? Would that be okay to do?
"THIS IS TRULY SCARY AND TRULY ARROGANT TO TRY AND FORCE OTHERS TO CHANGE THEIR FAITH AS YOU SEE FIT."
In all honesty, it just sounds like you're afraid to change your mind. Being closed-minded is not a very good way to debate, as you're likely to end up using circular logic to reinforce your arguments. I would suggest attempting approaching debates with an open mind. You'll never be right in a debate if you don't accept that you could be wrong.
"You did not address my remarks concerning bigamy. Do you think a man has the equal rights to have 20, 30 wives? Bigamists will say the same things as you about their rights of marrying many women.
Did you know there are Pedophiles who believe they are also born that way and therefore believe they are normal? Some believe they should have the right to marry consenting children?"
Personally, I'm okay with any relationship as long as the relationship is safe, sane, and consensual. In the case of polygamy- If every woman has agreed to willingly be in that relationship with the man, then why not? As for pedophiles, children cannot consent because they are too young- so no, I don't agree with that.
"Many people do not like no fault divorce. Their right's, of protection from a spouse who had an affair and chooses to walk out on them and can now take half of everything they own, was stolen from them....NO MATTER WHOSE FAULT IT WAS!"
I don't know a lot about this issue, so I'm not going to take a side on it. I'm also not sure why you included this in your argument, so please clarify it's relevance.
"I repeat, I believe homosexuality is NOT NORMAL and no way should our schools be teaching our children what some small group of activists want them to learn. Children are very impressionable, especially going through puberty, and parents have every right to protect their children from activist LGBT groups trying to change our school corriculum."
I'm very aware that you believe that homosexuality isn't normal. As for teaching homosexuality in schools, I doubt that it's a 'small group of activists', and if it is, so what? I'm not advocating for it to be taught that homosexuality is the 'right' lifestyle, all I want is for children to be made aware of the fact that being gay is something you might be, as well as taught that they might be straight. If you teach that being straight is the only way to be, then it's going to be very harmful to the children that are actually gay, as they're probably end up with an identity crisis and depression.
I agree, children are very impressionable- that's why you have to teach them to have an open mind. Teach them that there are multiple ways to live their lives and there are multiple paths to choose. Again, teaching them that there is only one right path, and accepting another path is somehow inherently wrong- which is how I was taught with Christianity - is blatant brainwashing.
"If Gays want respect from all Americans, then stop trying to force your views on everyone else."
Again, I'm not forcing you to agree that being gay is okay. I don't give a rip if you still believe inside your heart that being gay is evil and should be condemned, but I do think you should have to accept the fact that regardless of what you believe, there are gay people who want to marry, causing no harm to everyone else.
I'd also like to address the you say "Gays" and "all Americans". Please don't generalize every gay person and every American like this. There are many gay people who have respect from some Americans, and many who don't. Again, it's a case-by-case basis. Sometimes I think the gay person is justified, other times I think the other person is justified.
Well, obviously you are blind to the fears of Christians and other Americans who understand that FORCING CHURCHES to allow openly Gay Sunday school teachers DOES TWIST OUR FAITH! You are trying to destroy our religious freedoms to believe as our faith teaches.
Homosexuality is a sin in the Christian faith, as well as many other sins. No Church wants to put people openly living in sin to teach our children in Sunday school! Please show some semblance of intelligence.
Do you think a Church would choose a non repentant adulterer as the Sunday school teacher? It has nothing to do with Homosexuals being discriminated against. IT'S THE SIN STUPID! A Church could pick a Homosexual who has repented from his sin, but you do not believe it is a sin. CAN YOU GRASP THIS SIMPLE FACT?
You don't think it is a sin......CHRISTIANS DO! Can your simple bogoted non respectful mind grasp this fact? The arrogance of Gays is truly amazing. I understand that you don't like it when religion teaches that your lifestyle is a sin. GET OVER IT! WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO BELIEVE WHAT WE KNOW IN OUR HEARTS TO BE TRUE.
You can't stand this fact. The activist LGBT community can not stand Christians who believe their faith as written! YOU WANT TO TWIST IT TO FIT YOUR LIFESTYLES!
News flash, the Right never said that if the majority of people in a state wanted Gay marriage, it should not be allowed. What we hated was when activist Liberal Judges told the vast majorities in States that they had no right to make their own marriage laws.
This is why people like you are so dangerous. You could care less the ramifications of bigamy on our states. People like you look at one thing...yourselves and your insecurities of what people think, regardless the slippery slope of all other groups who will jump on board the new anything goes marriage laws.
We are through here. For a person to care so little for a parent's right not to have their child indoctrinated with pro LGBT classes, only proves the fears from millions of Americans concerning this activistism from the Left.
Our fears have been realized many many times you compete IDIOT! All you do when it happens is spew lunacy about how we lost no freedoms or spew rhetoric of how a loss of freedom is ok when some group claims supposed equal right's infringement.
EVERY STATE IN THE UNION HAS HAD IT'S INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS TAKEN FROM THEM! MANY STATES DO NOT BELIEVE THEIR MARRIAGE LAWS SHOULD INCLUDE TWO MEN. WHO MADE YOU ARROGANT CONTROL FANATICS GOD?
DEMOCRATS WANT TO FORCE EVERY PUBLIC SCHOOL TO ALLOW BOYS IN GIRLS BATHROOMS! You mindless extremist fools!
WE HAVE GAY AWARENESS DAYS IN SCHOOLS BUT DO NOT HAVE AWARENESS DAYS FOR EVERY OTHER CHILD. NO ONE GROUP OF CHILDREN SHOULD BE SINGLED OUT FOR SPECIAL MENTION UNLESS OF COURSE THEIR IS AN AGENDA!
ALL CHILDREN SHOULD GET A SPECIAL DAY OF AWARENESS WITH NO SPECIAL MENTION OF ONE OVER ANOTHER.
OUR FEARS ARE BEING REALIZED EVERY YEAR IN THIS NATION THANKS TO THESE EXTREMIST DEMOCRATS!
YOU AS ALWAYS ARE A DECEPTIVE LIAR AND A TOTAL WASTE OF TIME!
I WONT BE RESPONDING TO YOUR NEXT DECEPTIVE RHETORIC!
EVERY STATE IN THE UNION HAS HAD IT'S INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS TAKEN FROM THEM! MANY STATES DO NOT BELIEVE THEIR MARRIAGE LAWS SHOULD INCLUDE TWO MEN. WHO MADE YOU ARROGANT CONTROL FANATICS GOD?
The 10th Amendment ensured that the states are beholden to the United States constitution, which means they did not have any such freedom. Additionally, states, as collectives, have no "individual freedoms", and individuals who do not approve of same-sex marriage haven't had a single freedom or right taken away.
DEMOCRATS WANT TO FORCE EVERY PUBLIC SCHOOL TO ALLOW BOYS IN GIRLS BATHROOMS! You mindless extremist fools!
Some do, some don't. Ultimately it wouldn't really change anything.
WE HAVE GAY AWARENESS DAYS IN SCHOOLS BUT DO NOT HAVE AWARENESS DAYS FOR EVERY OTHER CHILD.
We have awareness days for plenty of children, and not every child needs an awareness day.
NO ONE GROUP OF CHILDREN SHOULD BE SINGLED OUT FOR SPECIAL MENTION UNLESS OF COURSE THEIR IS AN AGENDA!
There is an agenda; to stymie the epidemic of bullying that homosexual children have faced for generations.
ALL CHILDREN SHOULD GET A SPECIAL DAY OF AWARENESS WITH NO SPECIAL MENTION OF ONE OVER ANOTHER.
That sentence doesn't make sense. There can't be "special awareness" of everyone, and there isn't any purpose or reason for the average kid to have an awareness day for themselves.
OUR FEARS ARE BEING REALIZED EVERY YEAR IN THIS NATION THANKS TO THESE EXTREMIST DEMOCRATS!
They really, really aren't.
YOU AS ALWAYS ARE A DECEPTIVE LIAR AND A TOTAL WASTE OF TIME!
List a single lie I have uttered in the few months.
I WONT BE RESPONDING TO YOUR NEXT DECEPTIVE RHETORIC!
You just did, and in all caps no less. Did you think that would somehow make you right?
I've never had a "gay awareness day" or whatever in my school, never heard of it. I have participated in the "day of silence" for victims of LGBT+ bullying, which was my choice alone and not endorsed by the school.
Also, please don't call your debate opponent a fool and a total waste of time, that's disrespectful. If you're going to debate, at least don't insult your opponent.
Personally, I don't think the school should sponsor any kind of "awareness day", whether it be for black history month, "gay awareness day", or whatever. That sort of thing should be up to students to choose to participate in and arrange themselves.
Also, what freedoms are you losing by having gay people marry?
You are conviently ignorant to the facts of what activist gays are doing in this nation.
THERE MOST DEFINITELY ARE GAY AWARENESS DAYS IN SCHOOLS AROUND THIS NATION. It depends on where you live I suppose.
I agree we should have no awareness days in schools unless it does not single out certain PC groups.
I will ALWAYS call my opponents names when they are so arrogant to think they have a right to force my public schools, where I pay taxes and send my kids, to indoctrinate them on LGBT issues.
How would you like me forcing your schools to teach your child the Christian faith so that they are aware of diverse religions and people around them?
I'm not so arrogant! Schools should be teaching the basics because our nation's grades are falling to the world. Liberals are too fixated on political correctness in our schools, rather than math and English.
I would be perfectly okay if you were to make children aware of the fact that Christianity is an option and that there is a wide range of religions to choose from. Philosophy, in my opinion, is a very important part of education.
Also, failing grades with math and english have virtually nothing to do with what I was advocating for. I suggested that in sex education, kids need to be made aware that you can be gay, just like you can be straight, as well as educated on how to have safe sex in any case.
The Democrat party dissagrees with you. They want total censorship of any mention to our Christian heritage. They banned a communty's right to continue our symbolic Christian holidays in our schools. They censored a community's right to choose to have a school prayer where no child is forced to pray.
They are the big censors when it comes to our nation's history concerning our majority Christian faith and Christian heritage. We have the Ten commandments on our courtroom walls, but they censor our public schools from such things. Our Congress starts each day with a Prayer, but they censor our school's rights to have a prayer.
Unless of course the corriculum involves LGBT awareness. Then of course it is ok to indoctrinate our children to PC issues.
Again, I don't believe that the Democrat party as a whole wants to do all of these things. That's a large blanket statement to make for an entire party.
As for school prayer, I don't think I've ever heard of someone wanting to restrict someone's right to pray- however, people shouldn't be allowed to pray whenever they want to in school, otherwise people would use it to interrupt class. Outside of class time, I don't see any problem with it.
As for LGBT awareness, I don't think that's indoctrination, just like I don't think Christian awareness is indoctrination. For either, I don't think we need a day for it though.
Indoctrination is telling someone that their way of thinking is the only way of thinking- which I believe both sides of the political spectrum do, LGBT activists and Christians.
No, there is a double standard today. Democrats think they have the right to indoctrinate our children to political correctness, but refuse to allow any mention of our Christian heritage in schools.
The process of intentionally molding individuals beliefs to fit what another given individual thinks is politically correct. FromWithin claims that the Left is indoctrinating children into the political correctness of accepting homosexuality as not evil, recognizing that the climate is being damaged, etc. Meanwhile, he is calling for the indoctrination of his own form of political correctness, which is basically his belief that the United States is a Christian nation (as opposed to a nation that is majority Christian), that homosexuality is wrong and that homosexuals don't deserve legal and Constitutional equality, that the climate isn't being damaged, etc.
And no, Christian heritage isn't being suppressed. FromWithin believes in an extremely revisionist form of history, and if anyone anywhere doesn't adhere to his revisionist history, he calls it censoring Christian heritage. It's a load of tripe, to be sure.
Could you define what you mean by indoctrination to political correctness?
As for the Christian heritage, I was made aware of how the "under God" and "in God we trust" and God in the constitution in so on came to be, so I'm not sure what you're referencing by refusing to mention Christian heritage.
Unless someone lives under a rock, we are bombarded with political correctness. Political correctness is why neighbors said nothing about their muslim neighbors who were doing suspicious things in their garage.
Neighbors said nothing because those in the Democrat party have crucified people who dare speak out against possible Muslim sympathisers. They would be labled as profiling people simply on their skin color, or religion, etc.
People are so afraid of speaking simple truth such as two men having sex being an abnormal thing.
We can no longer state the obvious and if we do we will be labeled a homophobe, or islamaphobe, etc.
PC indoctrination is when our Government forces every school to allow boys in girls bathrooms, or telling schools to have Gay awareness days, etc, etc.
They are trying to push a Liberal ideology on our children and if you can't see this what can I say. Pay attention!
Did you now that "in God we trust" is under attack by the Left? Did you know that that the pledge of alegience in under attack? These extremists on the Left who reside in the Democrat party are trying to indoctrinate our children.
They want NO MENTION of God in our schools, on our money, or in any public place.
Two men having sex may have been an abnormal thing in the 50's, but now it's become widely accepted that gay couples are a thing.
As for the "in God we trust" and "under God", what's wrong with that? Our nation should not be based upon allegiance to a single God.
As for mention of God in our schools, what kind of mention do you want? Again, Christianity and other religions should only needed to be mentioned in a class that includes it, such as philosphy or history.
Homosexuality should most definitely mentioned in sexual education where awareness is needed. Other than that, maybe history class if it's in the curriculum.
It'd like to reference your argument about homosexuality being abnormal- first of all, most of Americans no longer accept homosexuality as being abnormal, people have started to realize that it's not a big deal. "Abnormal", even then, is a relative concept. In the 40's or maybe 50's a black person and a white person sharing bathroom was abnormal. The point is to give homosexuals equal rights so that it is normal.
Are you old enough to understand the concept of the slippery slope?
Fifty years ago doctors and pyscologists understood that homosexuality was not normal and considered a disorder.
Along came the anti God progressive Left turning every aspect of normalcy upside down with their political correct conditioning of our young people's minds.
We now have a generation of young people like yourself, having no knowledge of our past, believing everything the media feeds you. They brainwash you into believing that anyone who understands homosexuality is not normal is a homophobe.
The Left demonizes anyone who dissagrees with Big Brother Government just as Hillary did by calling Trump supporters as being deplorable! Do you see how it works? The Left insults and belittles anyone not towing the political correct line.
You swallow the rhetoric hook line and sinker. Please think about our bodies and how they are designed.
Of course there are people with many weird lifestyles and weird disorders, but that does not mean it is normal. Are pedophiles normal? In this sick world, it soon will be considered normal because they say they are also born that way.
This is the slippery slope I'm talking about.
No sooner had the ink dried on the new politically correct law forcing every State to change their marriage laws, that the Left lifted up Bruce Genner non stop as their new poster child. The slippery slope moved to transgender awareness.
Now extremists on the Left are arrogant enough to force every school to allow boys in girl's bathroom. These people are total radical control fanatics and people like you let it happen! Please don't elect these extreme activists! They truly are the thought police!
AMERICANS HAVE THE RIGHT TO DISSAGREE! WE PAY OUR SCHOOL TAXES AND DO NOT NEED SOME ARROGANT PROGRESSIVES DEFINING THIS NEW BIOLOGY WHERE A BOY IS ACTUALLY A GIRL.
You actualy think and I quote... "most of Americans no longer accept homosexuality as being abnormal, people have started to realize that it's not a big deal."
So for all of the Americans who do not agree that Homosexuality is a normal thing, are suppose to allow people like you to change our school corriculum because you have been conditioned to believe the unbelievable?
Sorry, thankfully this nation is not yet dead. Not all Americans have been indoctrinated with the lunacy of politically correctness and the plight of the LGBT community.
Some people still possess a brain and understand biology. We do not allow extremists to tell us how to ignore reality and except the dysfunction they spew.
Christians and Conservtives have no problem with gays and how they live their lives. What we will not stnd for is activists who want to change our laws, twist our faith, and condition our children to think up is down.
Okay. So, to start off, as JustIgnoreMe mentioned, that's a slippery slope.
But the thing that I see as a problem is that your slippery slope includes Pedophiles, as if we're ever going to start letting adults marry children. It's quite well known that we have actually moved towards an older marrying age over the years, but what's important is that we know that children are still developing their frontal lobe, and therefore unable to make completely accurate decisions for what is best for them. Because of this, Pedophilic relationships are inherently unconsensual.
As for homosexual relationships, they're safe, sane, and consensual. Consensual is the obvious part- the two men or women are very much so agreeing to be together, and the relationship is safe. As for sane, of course it's sane. Unless the two people aren't in their right minds, such as being delusional, then the relationship is also okay. It's been almost forty years since homosexuality was generally classified as a mental disorder. Even if it was a mental disorder, that wouldn't cause any problems. The only change it makes is same-sex attraction, so both people are still sane- having a mental disorder doesn't mean you're inherently insane. In the same way, you wouldn't try to prevent a relationship because one person had OCD or ADD.
Now, the biological argument. I'm very much aware that biology doesn't allow for usual homosexual sex- but does that mean you're going to outlaw anal sex between a man and a women too? Furthermore, homosexuality has been observed in other species- Bonobos, for example, have very high rates of homosexual relationships in comparison to humans.
The important thing I believe to stress is that it doesn't matter whether or not homosexual is "natural", which I believe is what you're implying when you say normal. Many things are "natural", such as rape, but that doesn't mean we should always try to pursue them. In fact, it seems like ethics fights against some of our natural instincts, such as the instinct to cause violence.
As for having no knowledge of the past, that's an empty claim to make. What knowledge of the past do you think I'm missing out on?
There's no such thing such as having someone who "understands that homosexuality is not normal". Something being normal is very subjective; it changes over time with what society finds normal. Slavery was extremely normal when then founding fathers were around.
Personally, I don't agree with Caitlyn's views nor do I think she's a good role model.
"So for all of the Americans who do not agree that Homosexuality is a normal thing, are suppose to allow people like you to change our school corriculum because you have been conditioned to believe the unbelievable?"
So, again, something being normal is subjective. As for changing the school curriculum, who suggested that? The only change I wanted to make was for same-sex relationships to be taught about in sexual education, where they belong and are very much needed.
"Sorry, thankfully this nation is not yet dead. Not all Americans have been indoctrinated with the lunacy of politically correctness and the plight of the LGBT community.
Some people still possess a brain and understand biology. We do not allow extremists to tell us how to ignore reality and except the dysfunction they spew.
Christians and Conservtives have no problem with gays and how they live their lives. What we will not stnd for is activists who want to change our laws, twist our faith, and condition our children to think up is down."
Name-calling, some negative-connotation insults. The key point I'm taking from this paragraph is that you have no problem with gay people and how they live their lives- then where's the problem? I'm advocating for gay marriage and awareness of same-sex relationships. If you truly didn't have a problem with the way gay people lived their lives, then why are you arguing against me?
To finish, I would like to hear your suggestion for what kids should be taught in schools as an alternative for what I have proposed, which is discussing same-sex relationships and safe sex in sex education.
Ok, we are about done here. I told you I will only ban people who are deceptive. I told you before that I DO NOT care what people do in their bedrooms and ONCE AGAIN you say, and I quote... "I'm very much aware that biology doesn't allow for usual homosexual sex- but does that mean you're going to outlaw anal sex between a man and a women too?"
Can you ever stop with ludicrous remarks trying to paint Conservtives as wanting to ban Gay sex or other weird sex? GET REAL!
You say and I quote..... "but what's important is that we know that children are still developing their frontal lobe, and therefore unable to make completely accurate decisions for what is best for them."
I agree and is exatly why I don't want people like you pushing Gay corriculum in our schools because kids are unable to make accurate decisions for what is best for them............ such as whether they are Gay or not when going through puberty.
You denied wanting to change our school coriculum when you said and I quote..... "As for changing the school curriculum, who suggested that?"
Then in the very next sentence you said and I quote..... "The only change I wanted to make was for same-sex relationships to be taught about in sexual education, where they belong and are very much needed."
LOLOLOLOL, THAT IS CHANGING OUR SCHOOL'S CORRICULUM!!!!!!
WOW, I can no longer debate your double speak.
Save your time and don't respond because I will not respond to another post from you on this subject.
I'm responding. If you choose not to respond, I will assume you have given up because your argument has started to falter.
Now- the correlation between homosexual sex and anal sex was not meant to imply that you were trying to ban either of those, I was trying to imply that a biological basis is not a solid foundation to oppose gay marriage on. I admit that I did ask if you were going to ban gay sex or anal sex, which I apologize for insinuating after you previously clarified, but you still have not responded to my other claims about biology.
"I agree and is exatly why I don't want people like you pushing Gay corriculum in our schools because kids are unable to make accurate decisions for what is best for them............ such as whether they are Gay or not when going through puberty."
So instead of telling kids that they might be either gay or straight, let's tell them that they're all straight hands down? I do admit that what I am suggesting is changing the curriculum, but what I meant to say is that it wasn't affecting the curriculum of math and english- there's no need for mentions or homosexuality, or even heterosexuality or anything else.
So, I apologize for being misleading- that part of the argument wasn't very well thought out. However, you still have not responded to my main claims. So I'd like to ask you a couple of questions.
Why is it your business in the first place to dictate who is allowed to marry who? If it were the case of an unsafe, insane, or unconsensual marriage, I understand, but gay marriage is safe, sane, and consensual.
What is it that gives you a prejudice towards homosexuality in general? What about it makes it so bad in comparison to heterosexual marriage?
If you don't want sexual education to include homosexuality, what do you suggest as an alternative?
Again, I'd like to emphasize that if you don't respond to this, I will assume that you have given up on the argument for some reason, and I therefore will have won the debate.
stop with ludicrous remarks trying to paint Conservtives as wanting to ban Gay sex or other weird sex?
Except they have done exactly that. Lawrence v Texas overruled a ban on "deviate sexual intercourse"/"weird sex" (including anal sex in their own home)
Dude, there are Republican attorney generals who have continued trying to ban gay sex within the last decade. It's not a "ludicrous remark" to recognize that.
So let me get this straight, you're okay with gay sex, which is what the bible speaks against, but you're against gay marriage?
Very few conservatives nowadays support actually banning gay sex, but it wasn't too long ago that the majority did support it, and using the same rhetoric that you are using now, with it being "abnormal" and "extremist" or whatnot.
Old laws, yes, but the same principle still applies- just admit it, you have no basis for having such a prejudice against gay sex.
While he is against gay marriage, that's not what he's arguing. He is arguing that requiring gay marriage to be legal is an example of the government having too much control over what states can do.
He is arguing both- he is saying that the states had to legalize gay marriage against their will, but he's also calling it abnormal and whatnot.
Even then, the government having too much control is an issue of perspective in my opinion. It could also be argued that the states should not have had so much control on dictating marriage in the first place.
a recent Democrat Congressmen who was a KKK member
Define recent. Byrd had left the Klan decades ago. Current Klan members are Republican and endorse D.T. ref
that means Democrats are racists
No, it means lots of Democrats USED to be racists - lots of Republicans ARE racists.
old laws, and trying to paint Conservatives as supporting it
That law in Texas wasn't overturned until 2003 - and Texas defended the law. The Supreme Court ruled it Unconstitutional thus striking down similar laws in other states. 3 conservative Justices voted against overturning it.
None of what you say about Democratics is true. You are simply lying about those you disagree with because you can't actually debate their opinions and beliefs.
"Well, obviously you are blind to the fears of Christians and other Americans who understand that FORCING CHURCHES to allow openly Gay Sunday school teachers DOES TWIST OUR FAITH! You are trying to destroy our religious freedoms to believe as our faith teaches.
Homosexuality is a sin in the Christian faith, as well as many other sins. No Church wants to put people openly living in sin to teach our children in Sunday school! Please show some semblance of intelligence.
Do you think a Church would choose a non repentant adulterer as the Sunday school teacher? It has nothing to do with Homosexuals being discriminated against. IT'S THE SIN STUPID! A Church could pick a Homosexual who has repented from his sin, but you do not believe it is a sin. CAN YOU GRASP THIS SIMPLE FACT?
You don't think it is a sin......CHRISTIANS DO! Can your simple bogoted non respectful mind grasp this fact? The arrogance of Gays is truly amazing. I understand that you don't like it when religion teaches that your lifestyle is a sin. GET OVER IT! WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO BELIEVE WHAT WE KNOW IN OUR HEARTS TO BE TRUE."
You're one to call me bigoted and non-respectful after you just asked me if I could "grasp this simple fact". Insults aside, I don't think it would be okay if a church would turn down an adulterer as a Sunday school teacher, as that fact wouldn't be relevant to the Children, and again that would just be biased. If the church was going to choose between a repented straight person and a non-repented gay person, I wouldn't have a problem if the church chose the repented person- that person is more suited to teaching the Sunday school. What's not okay is when the church chooses between a repented straight person and a repented gay person. If the straight person was found to be a better Sunday school teacher, so be it, let them teach. However, the gay person could've been the better Sunday school teacher, yet was turned down because he was gay, that is not okay. Everyone sins, and if the gay person had accepted that and repented, should he be allowed to teach?
As for it being a sin, I do think it's a sin. The bible specifically states that anyone who lays with another man should be stoned. That doesn't mean I think it's wrong, however. Lots of things in the bible are considered sinful, like eating pork or shellfish, hybridizing plants and animals, and wearing mixed fabrics. I very well know homosexuality is considered a sin, but the problem is why you think something being a sin dictated by the bible is wrong.
Referencing my earlier question, women are told to be submissive in church. This being said, would it be okay if a Church turned down women to teach Sunday school because of this reason?
"You can't stand this fact. The activist LGBT community can not stand Christians who believe their faith as written! YOU WANT TO TWIST IT TO FIT YOUR LIFESTYLES!"
I don't agree any Christian that dictates their entire life by a single holy book. To be honest, I feel bad for them, as they grew up being taught that living by the Bible is the only way to live. Furthermore, I've met many Christians who claim that they like to live by the Bible and that it's God's fundamental word, yet they ignore some parts of the Bible. Take Leviticus 20:13, "'If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." I don't believe that I've met a Christian who actually advocates for this, as it would be unjustified murder.
"News flash, the Right never said that if the majority of people in a state wanted Gay marriage, it should not be allowed. What we hated was when activist Liberal Judges told the vast majorities in States that they had no right to make their own marriage laws."
The "Right" is a large claim to make. I can guarantee that some people of the "Right" would have said this provided that the majority still wanted gay marriage. Even so, the states should not be able to dictate laws to such a great extent that they can choose to prohibit gay couples from marrying. That's suspending a civil right for virtually no reason. I'm not comparing marriage to skin color, but it did take Brown v. Board of Education to end segregation, mainly because states were reluctant to grant African-Americans these rights themselves.
"This is why people like you are so dangerous. You could care less the ramifications of bigamy on our states. People like you look at one thing...yourselves and your insecurities of what people think, regardless the slippery slope of all other groups who will jump on board the new anything goes marriage laws."
The only ramifications of bigamy that I can see is people rejoicing because now their loving relationship can become a marriage, while others scoff in disgust because they have some form of prejudice against bigamy. As for the slippery slope that you propose, what do you think is going to happen?
By opening up the constitution, you are opening up a can of worms; once the door is open, what's to stop additional amendments being proposed?
I don't care what people do in the privacy of their own lives; my question is: what business does the government have in this arena in the first place?
Actually, it is impossible to avoid the government and use the courts. That's why your argument is so fucking dumb. The courts are part of the government.
But it's their choice to have gov't involved; it's not mandatory. Furthermore, they can go to arbitration, which can be done privately. It's the damn lawyers you have to watch out for.
PS- Quit projecting your self on others with your dumbness.
Your position is fucking retarded. It is absolutely amazing that you can't figure out that the courts are part of the judicial branch of the government.
I know they are, dumb fuck; I'm saying that it should be optional to involve the gov't, not mandatory like it is now by getting a marriage license. However, common law kinda remedies that, though.
Ok, Sparty, er, I mean Cartman; you're having a bad day today. Have your mommy make you some pablum, put on Mr. Roger's Neighborhood and give you your pacifier. You'll feel much better afterwards.
It is just simply amazing that the first words out of a Democrat's mouth is taxes.
You are not very bright nor are you expected to be because you are a Democrat.
Enforcement of contracts, spousal privileges regarding inheritance are null and void with a pre-nupital agreement. Visitation rights if disputed by the separating parties is taken care of by the judge.
Marriage is about taxes so you say then all the single people in America should have not to pay taxes just the people that are married.Must be the reasoning behind you Democrats wanting gay marriage your clarification is noted.
No. The nature of the amendment runs contrary to the purpose of the Constitution, which is to protect and enshrine the rights of the citizenry of this country. It's inherently, purposely discriminatory in nature, serves no legitimate and compelling purpose, and would have no chance of being approved by the required number of states.
Opposition to gay marriage in Western society will fall into the dustbin of history along with racism and sexism. The tide has already turned. They will not and can not get enough votes for an Amendment. In fact the odds are greater of repealing 2nd Amendment gun rights than imposing a gay marriage ban and the 2nd Amendment will probably still survive a little longer.
