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.
I actually support marriage equality. "Gay marriage" doesn't exist anymore than "straight marriage". A marriage exists because two consenting adults seek a binding commitment, that will protect their loved ones.
When the age old definition of marriage becomes open to interpretation it no longer applies to just "two people". Where does that interpretation stop? What if four people decide to be married? What if I wish to marry my horse? If homosexuals decide to live together what's wrong with a "civil union"? I have reservations concerning a miniscule number of our population dictating a whole new concept of marriage.
I suggest that you check the dictionary. Love isn't mentioned but gender is. Incidentally, my horse is a "consenting adult". Lastly, you did not bother to try and refute my opinion.
Fact: Marriage is about love, not gender. You do not have the right to force your religious beliefs on other people. Gays have the right to get married.
Where in my statements did I mention anything about religious beliefs? My opinion is based upon nature's design and the last time I checked that design was two opposing genders for the purpose of procreation. The concept of marriage between a man and woman is in nature's design to provide a stable environment for rearing the issue of that procreation. Homosexual marriage is an absurdity at best.
His argument is not fallacious in any way. Your tried to point to AIDS as an argument against homosexuality (in a way), and he pointed out that AIDS is hardly unique to homosexuality and thus can not be legitimate used as a means to base said argument on.
What's unique to homosexuality is a highly disproportionate rate of AIDS and Syphilis infections, when compared to the entire populations.
According to a survey made by CDC in 2010, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men (MSM) is more than 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women.
The rate of primary and secondary syphilis among MSM is more than 46 times that of other men and more than 71 times that of women, the analysis says.
Well, that was what your argument was. You made an argument against gay marriage by pointing to AIDS. Would you like to elaborate on your argument? Because my 'sophmoric' counter used the same logic that your argument did.
First, same-sex marriage is not "celebrating" homosexuality.
Second, more heterosexuals die every year from AIDS than homosexuals. The need to spread better sex education is not unique to homosexuality, nor is the disease in question.
Well, nature has designed those people to be unable to make children. And yet you support their marriage. Nature has also clearly designed homosexuals to be attracted to people of the same sex.
And also, if you support marriage of any kind, you are denying nature's design. Marriage is man-made and as such, unnatural.
Nature has 'designed' male's to have pleasure centers in their bottoms. What is your explanation for that?
Nature also did not design computers or the Constitution or clothing or religion, and yet you take part in all of these.
You are ignoring one salient fact. The design of nature is two opposing genders. The fact that anomalies exist in nature in no way refutes that prime feature of the design.
It is unfortunate that some people must bear the onus of homosexuality but they are no less human. The fact of homosexuality must be accepted, but that is no reason it must be celebrated.
If nature designed "males to have pleasure in their bottoms" kindly explain our aversion to colonoscopies.
Well, first of all, even if homosexuality was against the 'design of nature' how could that possibly affect whether or not homosexuals should be allowed to be married? Marriage is unnatural, as it is man-made. Why does it have to follow nature's design?
And beyond that, can you explain why two opposing genders is the one and only design of nature?
The fact of homosexuality must be accepted, but that is no reason it must be celebrated.
But it is a reason to discriminate against them? Giving homosexuals the ability to be married is not 'celebrating' homosexuality any more than freeing the slaves was 'celebrating' black culture.
When the age old definition of marriage becomes open to interpretation
It always has been. Marriage and it's definition has never been static.
What if four people decide to be married?
What's wrong with that?
What if I wish to marry my horse?
The typical illogical response. Horses can not consent to either a contract or to sex.
If homosexuals decide to live together what's wrong with a "civil union"? I have reservations concerning a miniscule number of our population dictating a whole new concept of marriage.
And the rest of us have issues with people like you wanting to deny them their civil and Constitutional rights by forcing them into a "separate but equal" based off of "reservations". The same "reservations" kept couples like me and my wife from being married, because of "reservations" about the races intermingling.
The definition of marriage never included people of the same sex being married.
And before hand it didn't include people of different races being married. That is not a legitimate argument.
Every time I ask my horse if she wants to marry me she nods her head. That is about as illogical as people of the same sex being married.
Do you know what consent is? If so, then how can you justify that comparison?
Finally, the last time I read the Constitution there was no reference to marriage. You are attempting to defend an absurdity.
Loving v. Virginia established marriage as a civil right, one that has been upheld via the Due Process and Equal Protections Clause dozens of times via our legal system, including the Supreme Court on a number of occasions.
Well, they would all four have to consent to it, which, as we know from human psychology doesn't work due to human jealousy and a few other obstacles.
What if I wish to marry my horse?
Legally, your horse cannot give consent.
If homosexuals decide to live together what's wrong with a "civil union"?
By denying them marriage, you are denying them all the benefits of marriage. You are also telling them that they are inferior to those who can get married.
I have reservations concerning a miniscule number of our population dictating a whole new concept of marriage.
First of all, those who are not heterosexual make up more than a minuscule number of our a population. Second, the 'concept' of marriage is not changed.
Ok, so that's one place where homosexuality differs from your original argument.
Reply to second comment. Prove it.
Proof that animals cannot legally give consent?
Well, here's the legal definition of consent. Also, in modern day courts, animals are considered to lack moral agency, and as such are not tried as or treated as humans.
Reply to third comment. Civil unions provide all of the legal privileges of marriage.
A civil union omits federal protection for the couple. Also, if you are willing to give the same legal privileges to gay couples, why deny them the same term that you provide straight couples?
Three percent is a miniscule amount of anything.
Well, even if the 3% number is correct, that would imply that there are nine and a half million homosexuals living in the US alone. That's hardly insignificant.
And I said 'if' the number was correct because honestly, it's doubtful. Those numbers are self-reported from a generation that grew up under the idea that it horrendous to be anything other than straight. Studies range from 2% to even 10 or 20% of the population being something other than heterosexual. As we enter a society where it is generally more accepted to explore sexuality and be more open with relationships, why continue to deny these people's acceptance legally? Especially based on studies of people who grew up in an environment where 'devient' sexuality was stifled and shunned.
The concept of marriage is a union of one man and one woman.
Says who? In general, the concept of marriage is the bonding of two people that establishes rights and obligations between them and their families and provides legal benefits.
And even if thousands of years ago and for a long time after that marriage was only between a man in a women, what is the flaw you see in changing anything?
Why should straight people have to be the only ones following an archaic practice. Let the gay people be as miserable as most of us have been at one time or another.
Actually, I don't think anyone should have to get married to be together. Maybe a renewable 10 or 20 year contract that is hard to get out of would be best. Married people shouldn't get special privileges or tax breaks.
I heard once a long time ago, when divorce was becoming fashionable that if it was harder to get married and easier to divorce, than maybe people would choose more wisely.
I see no reason to forces churches to perform gay marriages as most governments let religions practice all sorts of discriminatory rituals.
I see no reason for secular governments to deny marriage licenses to gay couples, since a marriage license is a secular bureaucratic tool. For religious governments, that depends entirely on the religion.
I'm for gay marriage because you cannot justify denying two people the ability to be united as one under love simply because their way of life is separate from yours, it doesn't hurt people and the only argument against it is from a 2000 year old book that is full of falsehoods
I believe that marriage is a right for people, it doesn't depend on your sexual choices. Think about your first love, remember the skip in your heart the times you wanted to kiss him/her, could you controlled who to love? Of course not. Suppose that people were protesting against your love, because you want to spend rest of your life with that person. Therefore the Main problem with againts side is they can not empathize.
With Obama in charge I’m sure ISIS will settle that answer in do time. As for me I could care less. I feel if you're stupid enough to do it then go for it but in time it’s going to come back and bite you in the ass, but then you just might like that. LOL
What does President Obama have to do with this? The question is not about him. You stated you're "against", yet you proclaim, "..could care less....if you're stupid...". Clarify your argument please and focus on the topic.
getting married as a homosexual person doesn't make you any stupider as a person who believes that committing to the marriage will somehow come back to hurt the couple that gets married. provide some evidence that 2 homosexuals being married results in bad things every time.
Marriage is between a man and a woman. I have no problem with Civil Unions; literally couldn't care less. However Marriage is a sacred institution and rite and no group has the right to erase it in favor of their own branding. More importantly get the government out of marriage.
Marriage used to be between a man and a girl in many places. It also used to be between two people of the same ethnicity. If it has changed before, why can it not change again? Seeing as how it has already changed in many places, who are you to tell them others?
Additionally, why should they accept a "Civil Union" (something that marriage already is)? There is no compelling interest for the state to create another institution simply for the purpose of distinction, especially considering separate but equal is inherently unequal. Marriage in this country is not a sacred institution, it is a civil contract as well as a civil right (as per Loving v. Virginia) and therefore protected by the Constitution. You and your group have no right to deny said right to anyone, and homosexuals are not trying to "erase it" in any way, shape, or form.
We've had plenty of debates about this already, but I'll respond anyways.
Where does it say that in the bible? I mean, I've read in the bible that you are supposed to stone all men who have sex with other men, and you haven't been doing that. I guess you're a pretty bad Christian. I can't remember the last time I saw some Christians stone gay people.
Neither the "bible", nor any other religious text has any business determining public policy in a free and secular nation, such as the Untied States of America.
I'm against listening about the issue. Gay marriage, gay rights, gay pride. How I wish they'd go and do whatever it is they get up to and shut to hell up. What a beautiful word ''gay'' used to be until it was ''appropriated'' by the homosexual brigade. The word 'Gay' used to conjure up so many beautiful images of carefree cheerfulness, almost a sort of childlike merriment. For the average normal person the current meaning of the word doesn't bear thinking about. No reasonable person has any prejudice against those of a deviant sexual orientation but all normal people I know are sick and tired of been bombarded with the inferiority complex driven squawking of homosexuals and lesbians as they try to assert their abnormal sexual preferences on the rest of society.
This really is the least I would expect from someone from Northern Ireland. You are asserting your sexual preferences on us by saying we can't get married.
What is it about these mutant, deviant members of our population known as homosexuals? Why do they incessantly seek acceptance of their condition by normal people, most of whom, including me, couldn't give a chicken noodle what they do,''as long as they don't frighten the horses''. If they want to get married, that's fine, let them go and get married, and if that will shut them up, it will have my blessing and the approval of most of the normal population. They look for an anti homosexual agenda where none exists. They ask, ''do you approve of homosexual marriage''? ''Yes''is the reply. The homos continue, ''are you sure''? ''are you not a homophobic''? ''No, I've no issues with those of a deviant sexuality and feel that they have a right to get married, or even commit bigamy, as I really couldn't give a festering turd what they do''. Ah, ha, they cry, you're a liar, you find us disgusting and are prejudiced against us nice chaps, come on admit it!. Once again, I must stress I have no objection to you lot whatsoever, as long as you stay away from me, okay? So, get married/divorced, or whatever, but once again shut to frig up' just go and do it, quietly and happily like normal folk.
Perverts you say? What makes these Humans perverts?
This is an issue making sly comments as such is undiplomatic, there is nothing perverted about 2 people devoting their lives to each other. Would you like to know why? Simple, there is no difference in a "straight" couple getting married versus a "homosexual" couple getting married both are professing love for their mates. People tend to focus on factors that SHOULD NOT matter in the situation, if these two humans are happy then let them live a blissful life without being stripped of their confidence and humanity.
Is it possible to make an argument that is more unreasonable than what you just said? What makes people perverts just because they're gay or lesbian? You can't help it if you are.
Separate but equal is not equal. There is no reason they should have to use the term civil unions. There is no compelling interest for the state to create a distinction purely for the sake of distinction, and there is no way in which them having access to the same civil contract will have any effect on your life at all.
Right. "Will you civil union me" is so romantic. NOT! Gays have the right to get married too. If hetero couples have the right to get married, gay couples do too. The antigay concept is a religious idea that should NOT dictate the law. It is wrong to tell people what to do. What consenting adults do in their bedrooms is none of your business. We hold these truths to be self evident that all people are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
There is no law that say's that one person of the same sex must use certain words when making a proposal. As you said "What consenting adults do in their bedrooms is none of your business"
I agree and what goes on in there personal life all together applies. It would have been wiser for the gay community to use the term civil union. A certificate of civil union would be a legal document that covers all tax laws and would not conflict with the Church. Our tax laws allow people to claim anyone as a dependent with that, they can place the dependent on their insurance policy. That is what the gay community is complaining about and they have an argument. I think the gay community is going a little too far by forcing others to change other peoples personal beliefs.
A certificate of civil union would be a legal document that covers all tax laws and would not conflict with the Church.
Wouldn't we need to create the legal framework for this? Just calling it a civil union doesn't actually mean that civil unions are recognized.
A certificate of civil union would be a legal document that covers all tax laws and would not conflict with the Church. Our tax laws allow people to claim anyone as a dependent with that, they can place the dependent on their insurance policy. That is what the gay community is complaining about and they have an argument.
They also aren't allowed in to hospitals like family would. The civil union paperwork you are describing doesn't seem to answer that.
I think the gay community is going a little too far by forcing others to change other peoples personal beliefs.
No, the gay community asking for rights granted by the government shouldn't be affecting personal beliefs at all. People go too far when they say that they need to change their personal beliefs in order for the government to grant rights. That doesn't make sense.
Creating the legal frame work would so difficult, at least I think so.
I was asking to see if you thought there was a legal framework already in place that the gays would just use instead of complaining.
Isn't a marriage certificate a legal document too?
Yes, but you don't believe the gays should use that method.
Aren't you advocating that gays should use a legal framework that doesn't exist meaning they have to fight for that legal framework to be created. You are like Marie Antoinette "Let them eat cake"
It would have been wiser for the gay community to use the term civil union.
There is absolutely no reason for them to do so. Marriage itself is a a civil union and, as I have told you before, separate but equal is inherently unequal. The church has absolutely nothing to do with this secular civil contract, and to claim that people are trying to force you to change your beliefs by allowing them to marry each other does not make sense. This has no effect on you. At all. You don't need to support them getting married, or think it is okay. But they have civil and constitutional rights that are being denied when you try to prevent them from getting married.
Cool. If gays are allowed to marry you can still believe marriage is between a man and a woman. You don't have to believe that the married gays are a legitimate couple for the government to recognize them.
Then you can continue to believe that while homosexuals get married. Please tell me how homosexuals getting married forces you to change your beliefs?
I believe that every citizen deserves their civil and constitutional rights. The fact that people like you exist and have successfully prevented that from happening doesn't force me to change my belief.
The fact that people like you exist and have successfully prevented that from happening?
Im violating others people's Constitutional rights by believing that marriage is between man and a woman?
Sorry, Two people of the same sex? that's civil union, Marriage is between a man and a woman. It's people like you that deny me my Constitutional rights.
No no, simply believing that does not violate anyone's Constitutional right. You are of course entirely entitled to your beliefs. But when people such as you attempt (and often succeed) in pushing those opinions into law, then you are violating their Constitutional rights.
Sorry, Two people of the same sex? that's civil union
No. As I have said, there is no compelling interest for the state to create an institution purely for the purposes of distinction, especially when said distinction is itself inherently discriminatory and in violation of the Equal Protections Clause (and generally, by nature of implementation, the Due Process Clause).
Marriage is between a man and a woman.
To you, maybe. But that is a personal belief, not some objective fact. To others, it is between two consenting adults. What authority do you have to force others to adhere to your opinion?
It's people like you that deny me my Constitutional rights.
Please list which Constitutional rights I have denied or attempt to deny you.
