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.
Yes, that's wher the sick "agenda" logic is headed.
By the way, why don't we lower the age of consent? The fact that it's so high, violates the rights of all those poor gay teens, in "love" with older men.
The legality of same-sex marriage should not be decided by the government, state or federal. It should, as i like to say, "just be." Civil rights should not have to be legalized. It should be set in stone all of the natural human rights that everyone receives at birth. No one should be able to tell someone that they can't love someone the same way someone else can.
I support it in the sense that I see no reason to make it illegal, not when marriage is carried out among heterosexuals. Do I think it should go farther than same-sex? I don't really see the point of it, no.
Personally, I feel you either love someone or you don't. Marriage is just a legal way of identifying a couple who has decided to make it permanent, imho. No need to complicate it, but no reason to discourage it either.
Who the hell has time to care about whether or not the "two faggots next door" get married?
It's so frustrating that things like the African crises, Japanese tsunami relief, and the continuing crisis in Haiti all get brief media coverage before fading, and bullshit like this gets to live on.
Right now I feel like humanity is shackled. There are people out there who want to go out and help the world, to develop nations and create media that makes us question the foundations of humanity.
And we are shackled to the idiots who say "I think dem queers shouldn't marry,"
Please. Please, please, for the love of Christ and all his angels, let them marry. Let them do whatever they want and let's move onto things that actually matter.
On a personal level I don't care if homosexuals get married or not but I disagree with the idea that the state and federal government don't have a right to define marriage terms. I've studied the issue a lot and I think our government should have the final word on it.
I know, but some people are fucking retarded. That person posted a debate about slavery then disputed the fact that is is about slavery. I smell a troll. LOL. ;)
After reading both your arguments on the slavery debate I think it might have simply be a misunderstanding (I might be wrong!!) But I have added my spectators view on that debate.
I came off to strong on you. Slavery pisses me off. I grew up listening to my father say nigger this and nigger that, so racism and slavery really piss me off. Excuse my language dear. :'(
That's OK its one of those topics that is hard to debate using the head rather than the heart and if you grow up hearing that stuff day in day out it makes it harder, its also a topic that is hard to make some views without it sounding like you support slavery
I didn't say I was the victim. I'm asking you a question with respect, if you could answer it with respect that'd be nice.
In your last statement to The Ashman were you referring to me? If so, then in calling me names because you disagree with my point, you are using ad hominem.
Look Dana, I offer you as much respect as one can in a civil debating style, so I don't understand why every debate becomes so personal to you. If you truly like debating, and I'm still trying to be as respectful as possible, try arguing objectively it makes the whole thing funner, and it opens you up to new ideas.
You completely missed the point. You can't go as far as keeping insults from a debate site? I try and I try with you, I've lost all respect in you once and the result was an iron curtain and it wasn't good for either of us. I'm just trying to find some semblance peace with us.I'm past asking you to see my point in the ex-slavery debate, I know that's a lost cause. i'm just trying to see what we can do about your rationalization. I never bad mouth you, I don't call you out, and I'm absolutely certain you agree with somethings that i disagree with and still show you the respect I'd show any debater. I show lozors this respect. I show Nox this respect. Hell, for a while I showed (he who shall not be named this respect) because as a person who claims to be here to debate, as we all are, they deserve that much to not be called out, insulted, and basically attacked. Can you show me the same?
I choose to respect you. I feel strongly about this and let me tell you why. I am a former antiwhite racist. I grew up hearing my daddy say nigger this and nigger that, and he would kick me out if I brought a black boy home. I wanted to Have Denzel Washington pretend to be my boyfriend so I could get kicked out and not have my daddy abuse me anymore. I hated white people for so long. I was such a hypocrite. Racism and slavery bring up a whole lotta shit, so I am sorry if you get caught up in that. I just fear that I would be a bad person for agreeing with you, but in a way, Roman 8:28 agrees with you. all things work together for the good of those who love God, and God can bring beauty from ashes. I am sorry. I admit that you have some aspects of truth, but I would not take it as far as you did, because I am on a mission of racial tolerance. I hope that is okay, Q. Logic or God bless you. :)
I find that when arguing, objectivity makes all the bias go away. Who would imagine a black male, to argue on slavery's behalf? I can because I let my opinion melt away and see only fact. I'm just stating my style, your style is yours and I accept that.
Legitimacy for children is one of many, many goals in marriage.
Political marriage used to be the only point in marriage, love is what most people would say is the point in marriage, stability in a relationship is another, proving your commitment to the relationship... these are the most popular ones. Children are just a by-product.
Actually the original prepose was to bring together two suitable mates and bind them together in a family unit for the prepose of birthing and raising offspring.
They can just as easy adopt. We don't need more children with overpopulation and all nowadays.
I'm pretty sure the original reason was an amalgamation of celebrating love (wedding) and a more secure way of showing that that woman belonged to that man (marriage).
What? How did you get that from any thing I said? I simply stated that straight couples adopt children you don't need to be a gay couple to adopt. So what are you getting at?
Just having some fun. Straight couples are more likely to have their own children than adopt.
Gay people want to marry and form a family unit of bringing up children- you believe the purpose of marriage is forming a family unit and bringing up children. You don't need to have children to do this- which is my point. You can always adopt. The world is not underpopulated, so we don't need people to have more children. Gays are just as capable parents and less likely to bring up yobbo children as they understand what it is like to be discriminated against while being a vast minority.
So if you meet someone fall in love get married then find out she can't have children will you just turn around and divorce her because the marriage is invalid and impractical?
Well ultimately that's the individuals choice. But what I'm saying is there is no reason to legalize gay marriage as it would not contribute to the continuation of the species in any way it would only serve to change the meaning of the word marriage I ask you what benefit comes of that?
First off you haven't answered my question and secondly allowing same sex marriage would bring equality closer, I don't see how allowing two people who love each other would change the meaning of the word marriage, according to nearly everyone I've spoken to the meaning of marriage is the union of two people who love each other. They used to say that allowing interracial marriage would destroy the meaning of marriage but hey nothings changed, why would allowing homosexuals to marry change things?
Oh yeah I remember reading that if Gay people got married heterosexuals would end up loving each other less!!!
Anyway the overall meaning of marriage was destroyed the moment religous people started getting divorced, if the church no longer frowns upon man splitting that which God has joined together then has the overall message of marriage not been destroyed already?
Are you saying the Catholic Church is the only one that is keeping the true meaning of marriage alive? Whilst protecting people who have already broken the law and the rules of Catholicism sorry bit hypocritical for me
I call BS on that. So a woman cannot divorce her husband if she finds out that he is raping their daughter because it offends God? Your dogmatism is what offends God.
That is a very extreme and unlikely scenario. It's like me saying so a man can just divorce his wife because she won't let him rape their daughter? See its a ridiculous argument.
You are disgusting. Typical CONservative. It is a fact that sexual abuse is underreported. It is the most difficult crime to convict. A lot of victim blaming goes on. I was molested so I know.
You know only that you were molested you don't know who els was or how many others were. The fact of the matter is molestation is actually quite rare as is rape that's not to say they don't happen they just aren't very common.
It's not even really a religious confliction that I have with same sex marriage. I just don't think they are valid given the actual prepose of a marriage.
Than why the fuck have we not outlawed traditional marriage that does not achieve that goal? Why not take it further and make it illegal to marry without agreeing to procreate?
The majority of the people in this country apparently don't some people just get married because they want to spend the rest of their lives together and nothing more, most people don't see a problem with that. Besides it is a free country people should be married no matter sexual orientation and no matter what reason they are getting married.
But can't they just live together with out getting married? Or how about entering a domestic partnership what's wrong with those. Leave marriages to those who can carry them out properly.
Carrying out marriages properley you mean loving each other unconditionally until parted by death, Gay people are capable of this, so should be allowed to marry.
There is nothing in marriage vows saying that you promise to procreate.
You may as well get rid of the whole thing in that case because everyone can live together without getting married it could be argued that its an outdated institution.
So your argument is if gay people can't get married no one can? I already said they have domestic partnerships and there is virtually no difference between that and marriage so why stir up so much controversy.
I just don't see why it's so important in the over all scheme of things. Especially given all the other, more pressing problems we face at the moment. It just seems so trivial to me.
can't they just live together without getting married or entering an domestic partnership The point I am trying to make is that gay marriage does not harm anybody and our government should not at all be involved in it that is how a free country works!
can't they just live together without getting married or entering an domestic partnership? The point I am trying to make is that gay marriage does not harm anybody and our government should not at all be involved in it that is how a free country works!
do you have any idea how wrong you are? marriage is not about reproduction (though that may come with it). marriage is just a formal way of two people saying they love each other. Who's to say a man can't love another man, or woman love another woman. God isn't a valid answer either because a religious debate cannot be won and therefor forfeits the debate. who ever uses god as an argument cannot debate because it stops them from being openminded
Wrong. Who are you to force your outdated beliefs on others. Who I marry, what I do with my body is none of your business. I have the right to choose. If I want to use contraception, that is my right. If I want to marry a woman, that is my right. The Constitution protects freedom of belief and choice.
The first amendment (which I assume you are fearing to) as it was written by the founders and thus originally meant to be interpreted provides for freedom of religion and free speech as well as the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances. I see nothing in there of the rest of the bill of rights for that matter that affirms a right to gay marriage.
Yes but it also prevents the government from establishing any one specific religion. If the government "redresses" the grievances against gay marriage it will only establish the Christian faith further which is against the constitution.
But what if the majority is against it? It isn't a constitutionally affirmed right so as such it should be subject to popular will. We do live under a representative government do we not?
No Sexual reproduction in homo sapiens produces offspring you dolt, marriage is the institution which is in place to facilitate a sense of commitment and social acceptance.
Well, if you look to the right hand corner near the top of the page it should have a small lock, either closed or open. If you mouse over it you will receive a brief summary of the pages security. As posted in the link the page has been locked from editing due to the articles controversy.
I would still try to find a more creditable source than Wikipedia. It may be un editable but it still begs the question who wrote the article originally and what was his/her/their qualifications.
Did you use the Bibliography of sources listed below to see the credentials of the providers of said information? If no you have no valid basis in being skeptical.
What sources? I didn't see any author names listed. I saw names listed in the articles as part of the argument but I did not see the name of the articles author listed any ware.
The notion of same-sex marriage is something completely new to Earth civilization. Even in Gay Greece marriage was still marriage between a man and a woman. This new concept was introduced by the new "politically correct" liberals just recently, and now it is for some reason considered to be the pinnacle of "freedom" and "democracy". But it obviously has nothing to do with democracy, since the overwhelming majority of US population opposes it.
As for freedom - it's only the freedom of the mass media to LIE over and over again, like parrots, about the "harmlessness" of the gay lifestyle, and the discovery of the genetic origins of gayness. While in reality, both statements are far from being true, and this is proved by numerous scientific and medical sources. A list of them would take several forum pages.
So, this obsession with redefining the word "marriage", as a step in gay "rights" support, is quite strange. Everyone has the right to be a drug addict, but no one has the right to spread information that its "harmless".
As mentioned in my previous argument, a lot of medical evidence points out to the fact that the male gay lifestyle is a real health threat to those who indulge in it.
As far as I am informed, it is also quite difficult to get out of it, so it seems to be addictive.
It seriously reduces lifespan.
Hence the comparison to drug addiction.
In many European counties, it is not actually a crime to be a drug addict (as opposed to being a dealer). But if someone on the mass media would start telling stories about how drug addiction is harmless and wonderfully, - they would definitely lose their job, and maybe end up in jail.
I've just looked it up, and was surprised just how many countries in the EU do not prosecute drug use: Denmark, Germany, Italy, Austria. Storage can be prosecuted, but an addict does not have to store them, right?
As a matter of fact, in Britain and Ireland it is only illegal to use opium based drugs, but not weed.
In Belgium - only group use is a crime.
In Spain and Luxembourg - only use in public places is a crime.
Et cetera.
I have no idea why I'm telling you all this - I've never used or wanted to use any drug.
And anyway, this is far off the topic.
I only put up this subject, to draw an analogy with the addictive and harmful gay lifestyle. I compared its proponents to people who would speak in favor of drug addiction, in the mass media.
I've just looked it up, and was surprised just how many countries in the EU do not prosecute drug use: Denmark, Germany, Italy, Austria. Storage can be prosecuted, but an addict does not have to store them, right?
As a matter of fact, in Britain and Ireland it is only illegal to use opium based drugs, but not weed.
In Belgium - only group use is a crime.
In Spain and Luxembourg - only use in public places is a crime.
Et cetera.
I have no idea why I'm telling you all this - I've never used or wanted to use any drug.
And anyway, this is far off the topic.
I only put up this subject, to draw an analogy with the addictive and harmful gay lifestyle. I compared its proponents to people who would speak in favor of drug addiction, in the mass media.
Cannabis. Weed and Marijuana are colloquialisms that are not used here, (we use the actual name of the plant :P ). And Cannabis is illegal, either class B or C (it fluctuates- and I can't acess information on drugs at the moment). I do know the drug lawes in my country.
Yet again~ SOURCES. Reliable, academic ones! You have shown no proof at the moment that a 'gay lifestyle' is harmful, any more than a straight one.
About the gay lifestyle: the sources I have quoted are either statistics gatehered by medicgical orginizations. Check out CDC: if it is not a reliable source of statistics, then what is? (The organization' s purpose is to control the spread of different diceases).
And the other sources are just what you said: academic research - regarding lifespan, and average quantity of sexuals partners, of male gays.
If you want proof that it is actually academic research - then I can only suggest you check it out at some public library. Or at a biological faculty library of some college.
The only way to find out if its valid in the scientific world, is to check out the cross quotation index, which you would be able to do in such a library.
As I'd said before, these sources are just a minor fraction of the available research.
If you want a full list of about 100 articles, I can place it here. But will you bother to look up those articles, let alone read the list?
About the illegal drugs question - it's really irrelevant here. Maybe I was wrong about Britain, but in some contries it's certainly not a crime to consume drugs, if you don't store or sell them. For example, in Russia. I do know the druf laws in my country.
Once again, this was just a metaphor. You could as well replace drug addict by alchoholic, without my comparison loosing it's value.
Before I write anything else on this subject, please tell me if you've read my response to xBetzy. You had both disputed my initial post, but I wrote a detailed reply, with sources listed, only to xBetzy, since I'd thought that others who dispute it, would read all of my answers.
Anyway, in that response I listed several sources, which prove the fact that there is a really big difference between straight and gay men, regarding STD transmition, and health in general. Statistically, gay men are at least 20 times more likely to conrtact HIV, similar figures for siphylis.
And gay marriage isn't really about marriage, only about 1% of gays have gotten married, since and where it was allowed. This whole marriage thing is about creating a legal precedent, for further pushing the gay agenda.
Anyway, I have "written something else on this subject", but please read my answer to xBetzy, so we can have a meaningful discussion.
This is because they are not practicing 'safe sex'. Straight men also practice oral and anal sex with women, and I agree that these are unhealthy whichever gender you use. The misconception they may have that condoms are not needed in a gay relationship (as there is no pregnancy risk), but they are still needed to stop STD's. I am sure the risk of HIV &C;would drop sharply if they all used contraception.
I wrote about the STD problem, since it's the most obvious negative issue of the gay lifestyle.
The other fact is that they are much more promiscuous, than straight people. That is evident from many special surveys. Only about two percent of gays live in what we call a "relationship". A decade or so ago, when agenda gays were actually "anti - marriage", they did not think it necessary to hide their promiscuity. At that time it was a sign of "freedom", e.t.c. That's when the surveys were made, and nothing has changed since then.
This is further proved by the fact, that only about 1 percent of gays have currently got married, in places where gay marriage has been legalized.
In reality, most gay men hate themselves, and that's why they don't care much about protecting their health, by using condoms. Sources? Well, thats my theory, but it's based on the well - known fact, that gays are very prone to violence against other gays (and thats a fact, from criminal reports). Gays have statistically a much higher chance to get assaulted by other gays, than by straight people.
The other health issues they have, are mental health problems - also with a much higher rate that straights. If they "truly found themselves, by coming out of the closet", then why are they such a miserable bunch of people with mental issues?
What they seek from society is constant confirmation, that they are "OK". They themselves do not have this confidence.
And there are good reasons for that. Their lifestyle is damaging on many levels:
1. Physiologically - gay sex is anti physiological, the body part they use for sex is designed for an entirely different purpose. Many of their health problems are caused by this, thats apart from STDs caused by unsafe sex.
2. Biologically - the immune system gets damaged, just because of the manner of their sexual acts. The gay immune system is, statistically, more often than not, in terrible shape.
3. Energetically - several meridians get permanently wrecked up, including the lower ring. Points on the spine get closed, blocking energy, and seriously hurting the immune system. I know that this is considered a myth by western science, but acupuncture is proven do be capable of doing miracles, and it's based on the meridian system.
Many people are anti-marriage: including me. That does not exclude other people associated with me from getting married. As an oppressed group, who have been and continue to be told that they 'sin', are 'going to hell', that they are 'wrong and 'dirty', I can see how they would need emotional and psychological support.
1) yet again, you are against anal and oral sex- which is practiced by straight people as well as gays
1. I do not see that gays are really an oppressed group. For example: I used to practice chi - kung and taoist yoga, and our Christian orthodox church told me that I 'sinned' and 'was going to hell'. I couldn't care less about that, and I also knew where THEY were going. So, if you are confident of yourself, you don't really care about what other people, or groups of people, tell you about your way of life being wrong.
2. True about straight people practicing that kind of sex. I also think it's wrong. However, for one thing, it's still done on a much smaller scale. Most importantly: anal sex is the HALLMARK of the gay lifestyle, and that hallmark is destructive to their physical and mental health. The media is lying, when they portray it as "harmless", and I consider that to actually be a crime. They should be prosecuted, for intentionally dis-informing people about a dangerous lifestyle. As I've said before, this could be compared to public promotion of alcoholism: it's also an addictive condition, which reduces lifespan.
3. Meridians may be considered a myth in a part of the world. But you just cannot deny the fact, that acupuncture has saved the health and lives of many people, when the 'classical' medicine was helpless.
About marriage: as I've said, gays don't really need marriage. The whole gay marriage construction is meant to create a legal precedent, in countries where law is precedent - based. For example: how can you not teach about gays in schools, when they are even allowed to marry -> et cetera. A whole army of lawyers is ready to use this precedent, to further the cause of gay propaganda. That propaganda is, for most part, intentional disinformation about a dangerous lifestyle. That' s the plot behind the whole gay marriage construct, and that's why I think gay marriage is evil.
About emotional and psychological support: they do need psychological support. But by support I do not mean indulgence.
Most gays became gay, either because of a traumatic sex - related experience in childhood, or a as a form of escapist protection from the psychological aggression of society - they no longer have to prove that they are "real men", and can still have sex. What they need is psychological counseling, to help them overcome the initial trauma. What the "agenda" people offer them, is poison under the guise of help.
1) Not very long ago, homosexuality was a crime. And not everyone is strong enough to have faith in themselves- especially when everyone seems to be against them.
2) I am against it, but as long as it is not rape or pressured, they can do what they like in their own bedroom. that is sincerely none of my business.
3) "A number of studies comparing traditional acupuncture to sham procedures found that both sham and traditional acupuncture were superior to usual care but were themselves equivalent; findings apparently at odds with traditional Chinese theories regarding acupuncture point specificity.[15]~ Wikipedia"
Gay propaganda? In schools they tell us about gay people, what contraception they use and not to discriminate against them- but they don't make being gay sound attractive. gay marriage is about two people of the same gender who want to commit to each other in a romantic relationship, and have the same legal rights and recognition as a straight couple.
I was not really coherent enough in my previous statements.
First of all, I was referring to the health implications of the gay lifestyle - specifically, the male homosexual lifestyle.
As I' d mentioned, a list of sources can be very long.
Just one example - the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), a government - run medical organization. Their studies show that roughly 50% of all new AIDS cases are among homosexual men. Similar figure for syphilis. Now, if we take into account the fact that gay men make up no more than 10% of the population, - that makes them at least 10 times more prone to contract those deceases. (If they were on par with straight men, the ratio would have been 5%, not 50). In reality, there are much fewer of them - no more than 5% of the male population is homosexual. So that makes the disease ratio at least 20 to 1 compared to straight men!
Another aspect: promiscuity. (Just one)Source: A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978). This classic study showed that 43 percent of white male homosexuals, had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having 1,000 or more sex partners. So that gives some explanation of the health situation.
Same picture for other venereal, and non - venereal diseases. In fact, gays manage to contract and spread some diseases long thought to have been defeated by civilization (i think you can guess why - hint oral things they do).
Reduced life span: studies show that homosexual men have 8 to 20 years shorter lifespan that straight men. Source: Robert S. Hogg et al., "Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men," International Journal of Epidemiology 26 (1997): 657.
And this list goes on and on, none of these studies were ever disproved by scientists. And in any case, it's hard to disprove statistics.
There are also serious issues with lesbian women, but they mainly have to do with mental disorders and domestic violence.
None of this data is usually ever mentioned in the media, although it's no secret, and can be accessed by anyone who can read.
The media is keen on portraying this lifestyle as "wonderful" and "harmless", while dropping out all the gruesome details.
The "Gay marriage" scenario is just another technique, aimed at further promoting this lifestyle. It also creates dangerous legal precedents. And since the US law system is precedent - based, it actually creates a legal basis for establishing a system of state imposed gay propaganda.
Proof that its aimed at creating precedent: only about 1% of the gays have got married, in the states where gay marriage was legalized. They don't really need the marriage thing.
I do not hate gays, but I think that the "agenda" people are either deluded, or truly evil.
I will not dispute your first few points as they seem to have some basis in reality however your last points are what concern me.
The "Gay marriage" scenario is just another technique, aimed at further promoting this lifestyle
This lifestyle is not a choice, homosexuals have as much choice about their sexuality as heterosexuals, asexuals and bisexuals... NONE! to further bolster this claim research has been done recently on how exactly this comes to be.
