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.
If I say Marriage is Holy. I'm not saying that everyone who marries will be perfect and holy and never sin. Nobody ever said that all straight people are perfect.
Do I see the flaw in the logic of the words you put in my mouth?
Well, I do see the flaw in the logic of you putting words in my mouth.
But if you want me to burn down your straw man, I shall, but only if we can first dress him in your clothes. Even your special underpants. Especially your special underpants!
Okay so you don't support traditional marriage? Then I'm assuming you don't look down on the people who don't support gay marriage.. Is it only okay for you to not support something?
Run that by me again. I don't support what? Traditional Marriage?
What is "Traditional Marriage"? A concept without any real valid history or substance? Would that be something to look down on? A bogus notion that obscures the fact that over the wide expanses of this globe and throughout history, marriage has taken many shapes and forms?
Why would I not want to support a fiction like that? Especially when its used to deny people equal treatment under the law.
I find this whole mairrave thing amusing. Why do people care whether homosexuals are married or not. It doesn't affect them in any way! I remember watching a bit on the Daily Show with John Stewart where an interviewer was talking to this old man at an anti-gay mairrage rally who claimed that legalizing gay mairrage will increase abortion rates. Really?! Gay people are going to abort their babies?! That must be horrible news!
"Why do people care whether homosexuals are married or not."
Well people who want to marry their same-sex partner care. Those who oppose them have a number of reasons, all easily refutable, and all irrelevant to a decision about granting full legal rights to gay people.
OK, so if we allow gay marriage, how's it going to work? Are we going to sing, "Here comes the brides?" Is the person performing the marriage going to say, "You may now kiss the groom?" ;)
I mean, here's my point. Gays want straight people to take them seriously but then they go around ridiculing straight people. Pretty hypocritical if you ask me ;)
"We" already allow same-sex marriage, in various countries around the world and in various states in the US. In December 2000, the Netherlands was the first country to legalize same-sex marriage. I believe there they sing "Hier komt de bruiden". :)
What is being ridiculed here is the notion that there is now and has forever been, in all places on this planet, such a thing as a "traditional marriage" in the form social conservatives would have us follow.
If Joseph wanted to marry Mary in this time and place, that 90 year old man would be tossed in jail for messing with a 12 year old girl. And this is the "Holy Family" we are looking at. Why do we not follow the tradition they did?
Well..., because, as you pointed out, it left a lot to be desired. But I think that we finally worked the kinks out and finally got it right and should just stop messing with it anymore. ;)
"we finally worked the kinks out and finally got it right and should just stop messing with it anymore"
So said the dinosaurs!
So all this outcry about protecting marriage is because its working so well that over 50% end in divorce. That makes sense. Lets protect it until there is no one who doesn't ever stay married!
It is retarded to say, "Traditional marriage is stupid!!! Can I join your little club?"
The only person I've ever heard say that however is you.
The point is this series of debates (this is part 2 with more to come) is to illustrate the fact that "traditional marriage" is a myth. Not that its "stupid", but that it didn't ever really existed in the way its portrayed to be. Instead, an examination of marriage from all periods of time and from all parts of the world will find that humans have formed official bonds in many ways -- each valid for their time and place.
One tradition was for 90 year old man to marry a 12 year old. In fact, that is what is said to have occurred with the "Holy Family". What better example then, right?
So-called "Traditional Marriage" is, at best, a red herring. It is a myth used to divert attention to the truth. The true significance of the issue is that, like inter-racial marriage less than 50 years ago, people who wish to form same-sex unions are being denied that right.
By the way, the black woman who's case was heard by the Supreme Court (who then over-turned laws forbidding blacks and whites to marry) supports same-sex marriage, as does the widow of Martin Luther King.
But I suppose someone could have argued that slavery is not only traditional, its in the Bible!
"The true significance of the issue is that, like inter-racial marriage less than 50 years ago, people who wish to form same-sex unions are being denied that right."
No, that is not true at all. They are NOT the same thing. If a black man was caught living or sleeping with a white woman, he would have be thrown in jail (at best) or killed (at worst). On the other hand, gays lovers are free to live as a married couple and no one bats an eye. They can walk hand in hand and kiss in public. The true significance of the issue is that they want the "additional" benefits. Benefits that can be given to them under the name, "civil union."
"The true significance of the issue is that, like inter-racial marriage less than 50 years ago, people who wish to form same-sex unions are being denied that right."
It's absolutely true. Are you saying same-sex marriages are being allowed in every state in the union? They are not. People who wish to form same-sex unions are being denied that right. You want them to be jailed or killed first before you would grant them that right? Funny, the widow of Martin Luther King doesn't seem to feel that way. She thinks we can forgo the lynchings and just give same-sex couples the right to marry.
"gays lovers are free to live as a married couple and no one bats an eye. They can walk hand in hand and kiss in public".
Recently, a 28-year-old woman in San Francisco was assaulted and gang-raped by four men for being a lesbian.
The increased acceptance of gay, lesbian, transgender and bisexual people does not mean the end of hate crimes directed at them. In fact, they continue to rise, by at least 24% since 2005 [1] Yet they are the only hate crimes excluded from federal and many state statues, making proper investigation and prosecution difficult, if not impossible.
"The true significance of the issue is that they want the 'additional' benefits."
Well, of course they do. They don't want to get married because they think they will be safer to walk down the street holding hands. [2] They want to get married for the same reasons other people do.
"Benefits that can be given to them under the name, "civil union.'"
They aren't asking for "Equal Rites", just "Equal Rights". No need to play the semantics game. Marriage is a civil union. Let them get married.
Benefits that can be given to them under the name, "civil union.
[1] Take a look at the "Incidents and Offenses" section of the FBI report, "Hate Crime Statistics, 2008" (the most recent report available on-line) and read the section headed "Sexual-orientation bias". Then compare the numbers in previous reports.
[2] However, it would be interesting to compare the rate of hate crimes directed toward sexual minorities where gay marriage are and where they are not allowed).
As you have pointed out in another argument, What the widow of Martin Luther King thinks, and what is right are two different matters here. No one said anything about wanting gays to be jailed or killed first before they are granted gay marriage (NOTE: gay marriage is NOT a right). You are the only one saying that. Could it be that you're trying to set up a straw man argument?
Gays are fully capable of obtaining "marriage" benefits under the name "civil unions."
"according to the United Nations, marriage is a fundamental human right."
OK, I'm going to forget for one second that this is the United States of America and that we are NOT under the control of some world government that gets to tell us what to do.
There are 2 aspects of "marriage" according to YOUR definition. One aspect is the one where people get chose who they will spend the rest of their life with, live with, sleep with, have children with, etc. The second aspect, of course, are the benefits that the U.S. government bestows on married couples. The second aspect does not apply when dealing with the UN because not all governments bestow the same benefits (if they bestow any). If benefits were inherently part of marriage, then the UN would have to specify exactly which benefits and that has not happened.
Marriage has one and only one aspect; the one where people get chose who they will spend the rest of their life with, live with, sleep with, have children with, etc. That's it. Gays are free to make those choices without any fear of government intervention.
OK, my self induced amnesia is now over. Back to the real world ;)
"we are NOT under the control of some world government that gets to tell us what to do."
That is correct. We are fully free to ignore the declaration of the United Nations that marriage is a fundamental human right. We can claim to be a bastion of freedom in this world and still deny a segment of our population their fundamental human right to marriage, if we like.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted largely due to the work of the United States. Nonetheless, we have the right to pick and choose which parts of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights are not universal --that is, do not apply to segments of our population.
We have the right to deny anyone we choose the right to marry, which is to say, the right to have the law recognize their deepest, most important relationship with a person whom they love, honor, cherish and intend to cling to, forsaking all others, and with whom they hope and intend to spend the rest of their life, a secure, stable and dignified life of full equality in marriage..
Except for the small matter of the US Supreme Court, which in their decision in the case of Loving v. Virginia wrote, "Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man'".
"The fact is that even married gay folk can not get the federal benefits granted to all other married people."
OK, so instead of trying to piss people off with crap like, "traditional marriage is between a 92 year old man and a pregnant 12 year old girl" etc., petition the government to extend the same rights to gay couples under a different name. Attacking the religious right will only result in enemies and a backlash. Whereas attacking the government will gain you allies.
"The true significance of the issue is that, like inter-racial marriage less than 50 years ago, people who wish to form same-sex unions are being denied that right."
That is flat out lie. 50 years ago inter-racial marriages where punishable by law (jail time). Gays can form same-sex unions without fear of serving time in jail. They are not being denied their union. They are, however, being denied benefits associated with heterosexual unions.
"Recently, a 28-year-old woman in San Francisco was assaulted and gang-raped by four men for being a lesbian."
OMG, one anecdote! Give me a break. What percentage of gay lovers are assaulted and gang-raped for being gay? That's why we have laws against hate crimes. If we as a people (or if the government) condoned such actions, then I would say you have a case. But right now what you are telling me is that if gays are given the "right" to marry that all of the sudden gangs would stop assaulting and stop gang-raping people for being gay. What a load of crap. Just how ignorant do you think people are?
"But right now what you are telling me is that if gays are given the "right" to marry that all of the sudden gangs would stop assaulting and stop gang-raping people for being gay."
That IS a load of crap. Your claim that that's what I'm telling you -- total crap.
"OMG, one anecdote!"
OMG, one anecdote, followed by data from the FBI that the rate of hate crimes is going up. Give me a break -- from your less than truthful selective attention there.
"we have laws against hate crimes"
Except for, where we don't. Re-read my post...you know, the part about sexual orientation not being part of hate crime laws in many states and at the federal level.
But that's not the point. Despite increased acceptance of sexual minorities and despite hate crime laws (where they exist), attacks on people due to their perceived sexual orientation is on the rise.
Why don't you deal with that fact instead of what you imagine me to be saying.
"Why don't you deal with that fact instead of what you imagine me to be saying."
OK, I'll deal with it again. The gay community has been trying to portray themselves as victims stripped of their civil rights and comparing their plight to that of the black movement during the 60's (where blacks were imprisoned, hosed with fire hoses, and beaten). The gay community has also tried to paint their opposition as Nazis and bigots. All of this in order to get marriage benefits. Then they act surprised when the opposition fights back.
It would be interesting to see if there is any relation between the increase in hate crimes against gays and the increase in gays bashing heterosexuals and the institute of marriage.
I've said it before and I'll say it again here. The tactics being used by the gay community (in order to obtain marriage benefits) do not serve them well.
"[2] They want to get married for the same reasons other people do. "
Great! Let them have a wedding ceremony. Totally legal. Let them exchange vows. Totally legal. Let them tell the world that they are married. Totally legal. Let them live together. totally legal. Let them sleep together. Totally legal. I don't see the problem here.
You want a freaking piece of paper that says you're married? Fine, get a copy of Photoshop, a scanner, a computer and a printer... hell, I'll do it for you. What are names you want on it?
"an examination of marriage from all periods of time and from all parts of the world will find that humans have formed official bonds in many ways -- each valid for their time and place."
Apparently gay marriage is not valid in this time and place.
Didn't the homosexuals get their ass handed to them in Maine and California? It sounds to me like gays should have been attacking the government instead of the religious folk. They pissed off the wrong crowd. Let's see how long before those laws are repealed.
There are different traditions depending on time and place, so their are different forms of traditional marriages, depending on what you are talking about. Most marriage traditions throughout history defined marriage as a union between one man and one or more women or girls, depending on time and place.
