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.
Of course it should be legalized, everyone has feelings and everyon should have equal rights. I believe our generation will be the first ever to legalize it. So for all you rednecks, suck it up.
There's a big difference between felons and gays. Gays have done nothing wrong, felons obviously have done something wrong... hence the reason they were convicted. You comparing them to felons is the only "horrid" thing.
Well, it doesn't matter that they have done something wrong. They still have feelings, and according to your previous argument, this means that they should have equal rights.
You are generalizing what straight people believe about gays. It's as if you assume that the person you are arguing with is gay. What if they're straight? I'm straight, even married, and I posted a point for gay marriage in this debate.
My point is that most straight people believe in sexual freedom just as much as gays, the people who are being treated as second-class citizens by you religious people in the first place.
Also, the creation story of Christianity is not a good argument for this. It's like trying to argue that dragons existed because there are tales of medieval heroes slaying them. We know that dragons do not and have never existed; they would be in the fossil record if they had. We also know that the Judeo-Christian creation story has no evidence to support it ever happened; the carbon-dated age of the Earth is far greater then 6 thousand years.
Yeah, I'm straight, I have feelings. But me being straight is completely irrelevant, so is other people being gay. It shouldn't matter if you are gay or straight, fat or thin, black or white. Two gay people can feel an equal amount of love, than that two straight people feel. It's because of people like you, voicing your negative opinions on the gay community, people are scared to come out of the closet. There shouldn't even be a closet in the first place because they shouldn't have to hide! You being a homophobic is just as bad as you being racist or you being sexist. I'm sure if the tables were turned and it was straight people who had a limited amount of rights you would feel differently about the situation, but until something like that happens I suppose you are too shallow and ignorant to even consider how others feel.
What about age? I am positive that the argument could be made insisting that children are the slaves of today. They can't buy porn, cigarettes, alcohol; they can't drive, go to R rated movies. They need an adult's signature for nearly everything else. They are second-class citizens.
So you are saying that nobody deserves to be a second class citizen unless the government decides that, up to a certain age, they're better off being a second rate citizen? What difference is it going to make if I buy a pack of smokes the day before, or on the day of, my eighteenth birthday?
I realize this is an issue not of the government but of individual theaters themselves, but what difference does it make if a fifteen year old, or even a twelve year old, wants to see an R rated film without their parents? Most often it isn't anything they haven't seen before, and I'd say that when it comes to the nudity in such films, it'll be a lot less graphic than they are used to.
We should stop trying to protect children and treat them like human beings, no more or less valuable, or protectable, than anybody else.
So you are saying that nobody deserves to be a second class citizen unless the government decides that, up to a certain age, they're better off being a second rate citizen?
Yup. Children are not citizens, they are children. When I was a child, I felt rebellious like all children, feeling like I wasn't being treated fairly by adults. Well, then I grew up and realized that being an adult is a pain in the ass. Children have it good when they are of the Middle or Upper Class. They have nothing to bitch about that's really important. The only problem I see is when adults don't show them exactly how good children have it and instead become angry, bad parents over the fact that they children get to enjoy luxuries!
That's right: children enjoy luxury while having less rights then adults. There is nothing wrong with that. It's totally balanced.
And if a child is so incredibly emotionally and/or physically broken by his or her parents, then he/she may emancipate! You children have the rights to become adults out of your own fruition and hard work!
You have too many rights sometimes if you ask me. The courts favor you, the government favors you, all organizations favor you, society favors you; all while your hard-working adult parents are trampled by their bosses for not bringing them coffee on time.
You need to stop complaining about not getting to see mature movies and start enjoying what you have, boy, because unless you practically kill yourself working, you won't get to have enjoyments ever again like this in your life while you're an adult!
I am, in a way, playing devil's advocate with you. I believe in giving children more rights and responsibilities, but in the following argument I think I go overboard.
Children are not citizens, they are children.
I wouldn't be too surprised if, 150 years ago, people said something along the lines of niggers are not citizens, they are niggers!
When I was a child, I felt rebellious like all children, feeling like I wasn't being treated fairly by adults.
Surely a common, but most likely not universal, sentiment by children. Which leads me to ask: why should those who fail to harbor such animosity be forced to suffer because there are those who give their kind a bad name. It's like accusing a black man of thieving simply because he was the only black person within a mile of the theft - the individual must be considered, not the collective as a whole.
Children have it good when they are of the Middle or Upper Class.
In many ways, they have it too good. Spoiled with possessions by parents who spend more time at work then with their family, encouraged to remain indoors with the latest Nintendo rather than play outside for fear of stranger danger. It sure is a good time to be a kid.
Maybe they should get a glimpse of the real world, not the protective bubble put up by overprotective parents?
They have nothing to bitch about that's really important.
They're children, what is important to a child rarely is important to a more rational human being.
That's right: children enjoy luxury while having less rights then adults. There is nothing wrong with that. It's totally balanced.
As a libertarian, I beg to differ. It is no different than saying that, under a system of absolute government control, you can get the best cars and entertainment, and live an otherwise nice life, but simply without freedom. I want freedom to suffer and to experience the world as it really is. Why should children be any different?
And if a child is so incredibly emotionally and/or physically broken by his or her parents, then he/she may emancipate!
Something not being done often enough. I call for total emancipation of all living beings! No more must my herb patch be subservient to me! Be eaten by he whom you wish to consume you!
You need to stop complaining about not getting to see mature movies and start enjoying what you have, boy, because unless you practically kill yourself working, you won't get to have enjoyments ever again like this in your life while you're an adult!
I'm not arguing for myself, but on behalf of children. I yearn for the innocence of childhood again, of sneaking into restricted movies, and of being free from the stress of everyday life.
I wouldn't be too surprised if, 150 years ago, people said something along the lines of niggers are not citizens, they are niggers!
Right, because we take away rights from children based upon how they look and not the fact that they cannot support themselves.
Oh, wait.
Which leads me to ask: why should those who fail to harbor such animosity be forced to suffer because there are those who give their kind a bad name.
This is not about punished children for being rebellious, this is about protecting their growth. I was using my childhood as an example to show that I can sympathize with both young and older views.
Maybe they should get a glimpse of the real world, not the protective bubble put up by overprotective parents?
I agree, but this solution is not to pop the bubble and give them the same citizenship as adults. The solution is to help them understand what the real world is like, as opposed to coddling them or mistreating them.
They're children, what is important to a child rarely is important to a more rational human being.
Right. Why should we give them more rights therefore if they aren't unhappy about important things? The only thing that makes a child unhappy is when their luxury is distrupted, not when there is a truly unjust violation of their rights.
Though I will not deny that it can happen, it will not happen in a common situation.
As a libertarian, I beg to differ. It is no different than saying that, under a system of absolute government control, you can get the best cars and entertainment, and live an otherwise nice life, but simply without freedom. I want freedom to suffer and to experience the world as it really is. Why should children be any different?
Because absolute freedom doesn't necessarily equate to happiness. That's the only problem I have with this view of yours. Order is not a bad thing, nor is freedom; but neither are as important as happiness. If you give someone enough freedom to be happy and in return press upon them order only to the point in which the order does not disrupt their happiness, what's would be the problem?
There would be none.
Something not being done often enough. I call for total emancipation of all living beings! No more must my herb patch be subservient to me! Be eaten by he whom you wish to consume you!
Either you're being silly with this statement, or you're more of an anarchist then a libertarian.
I yearn for the innocence of childhood again, of sneaking into restricted movies, and of being free from the stress of everyday life.
Children have enough rights to escape stress without breaking the law or being complete idiots (i.e. premature sex, drugs, stunts, etc.). We should impose this on them. They practically have too many rights as it is.
Well, who am I to judge? Marriage is entered into for many reasons...so the wiki says. Virtually none of them say it is to have children, but it does say it is to protect children. I guess I would say...let it be so!
why you have said that people can not have sex between the same gender? they can, and it is normal. they are also people,we are all people. and they have rights to love... and one more anout the God, people who are homosexual, they are made by God because They are born eith this, and not become gays or lesbians
You need a man and a women to reproduce and get more people in this world.
it does not matter which couple is it? homosexual or heterosexual. some people do not want to have children! they just want to make their relationship official.
The majority of people on here are on your side? How can they be following "stereotypes...made many many years ago" which are opposed to homosexuals if they are apparently pro gay rights?
I believe it should be legalized because love is something homosexuals, bisexuals, and straight people in this world all experience. You say that gays shouldn't be able to get married because marriage is something special for just a man and a woman, but I've seen many of those types of marriages ending in divorced, or they are just getting married to inherit their spouses wealth. Does that sound like what you argue is the sanctity of marriage? I believe anyone should be able to get married in this country because this is America. Civil Unions and marriages are very different. Those who beg to differ I have one question, want to trade your marriage for my civil union?? I didn't think you would.
It seems to me that they are simply pointing out that those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, but here's something that might be a little more familiar; "Thou hypocrite! First cast the beam from thine own eye, and then shall thou see clearly to cast the speck from thy brother's eye." That, right there, is Matthew 7:5. You know, The Bible.
Same-sex marriage is a civil rights, political, social, moral, and religious issue in many nations. The conflict arises over whether same-sex couples should be allowed to enter into marriage, be required to use a different status, such as a civil union, which is usually more limited, or not have any such rights. A related issue is whether the term "marriage" should be applied
The word "marriage" precedes religion, and so does its concept.
If I am correct in understanding that by "precedes" you mean "pre-dates," you're going to have a hard time supporting that point (although I agree with both of your other assertions). Religious behavior is tens of thousands of years old; its seeds can be found in earlier hominids -- ritual burial of the dead, for example. While no religion currently in existence is that ancient in its own right, religion itself is a very old part of human societies. But we don't know a whole lot about the formalization of relationships into "marriages" prior to the introduction of writing, because while we can find actual physical evidence of religious behaviors, we must rely more on records to track the history of marriage as an institution. We know that "marriages" do pre-date writing as an innovation in human culture, but I don't think that we have good evidence as to just when the development of "marriage" as an institutional relationship came about.
The word "marriage" is very much younger than either the social institution of marriage or the social institution of religion: "The modern English word 'marriage' derives from Middle English mariage, which first appears in 1250-1300 C.E. This in turn is derived from Old French marier (to marry) and ultimately Latin marītāre (to marry) and marītus (of marriage)." (The Wiki.)
However, the origins of the word and the custom aren't really all that relevant since, as you say, "the definition of marriage has already changed multiple times throughout history--both around the world and in America." In terms of the legal definition especially -- which is all we really care about in relation to gay marriages -- this is entirely correct. The legal definition and requirements of marriage have changed many times to accomodate our sense of social justice. You can't marry more than one person at once. You can't marry someone under a certain age limit. You CAN marry someone of a different race. And so forth.
What it really comes own to is whether there is a strong social policy in law that justifies denying gay folks the right to marry other gay folks, and since Lawrence v. Texas I think the argument that such a policy exists has been pretty seriously undermined.
As evinced by this debate and just about every other debate on the subject, the primary argument against allowing gay marriages is rooted in a modern-day breed of conservative Christianity, and while said conservative Christians are trying harder and harder to argue that their faith is a basis for acts of government, by the terms of our Constitution and our legal tradition, religion is just not a basis for acts of government.
Allowing gay marriage, as many other people here have noted, would not change one single thing about straight marriages. It might offend some folks' religious sensibilities, but that's just life in America -- that sort of goes hand-in-hand with the whole "separation of church and state" thing. People's religious sensibilities get offended all the time, and there's most certainly no legal right to not ever have your personal beliefs offended. That whole idea is pretty antithetical to our notions of basic liberty rights like freedom of speech, press, association, etc.
And as you say, "civil rights aren't about satisfying opposing parties [but] about social equity and justice"; and nobody is infringing on the rights of conservative Christians to do or believe anything by allowing gay people to marry.
To my mind, everything in this world changes and because of that the understanding of humans' relationship also became different. so why not? maybe today people get disappointed in the opposite sex and they change their mind? Today the inhabitants of our planet have a free right to choose whaterver they want and I do support this idea.
Yes. It's a civil rights issue, it shouldn't be debated about, are you serious? Why is marriage necessarily between one man and one woman? What has made it that way? Religion? Religion has no place in influencing law. There is a separation of church and state for a reason. Do people realize that their precious bible doesn't even mention gay marriage anyway, and only brings up gays 3 times, with the verses' meanings being debatable? Try reading this, for anybody using their christian/jewish religion as part of their argument: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2017293599_glickman21m.html?prmid=obinsource. (i understand that not all people are christian, just taking the most used religious book for the religious argument)
"we need to keep the sanctity of marriage"
What sanctity of marriage are you talking about? That's absolute bullshit.
"how do I explain two men/two women getting married to my child?"
I don't know, it's your fucking kid. Are you trying to refute the legalization of gay marriage because you can't take the 5 minutes to explain something to your kid?
What definition of 'should' are we using? I don't think it is an obligation to legalize, otherwise it would have been done already. However, I don't think an argument can really be made anymore to prevent it's legalization.
You call that progress? Sure, take your tips from that book. By the way, you might wanna check the tag on your shirt. If it is (or if you've ever worn) a blend of more than one fabric, guess what? That's right! You've won an all expense paid trip to the fiery pits of hell! Ever eaten shellfish? What about pork? Congratulations, that wins you this fabulous prize as well!
Even withing Judaism, Sodomy was always considered a far more serious offense than eating pork or shellfish. There is a hierarchy of sin and grace, always has been.
Oh dear Pagan, I would grab my Sword of Jesus and slice your head off, put it on a pole and await the next foolish rebellion against the glorious Kingdom of God Almighty!
So what you're saying is that some of the lord's commands are better than others?
If you want to keep to biblical marriage standards, bad luck if you're a woman because guess what? You're the property of your husband, for him to do what he will with you! And if you don't want to, tough, he's allowed to beat you with a stick, as long as it is no thicker than his thumb of course!
You mean the 'rule of thumb' legend. That has already been proven to be a lie anyway. The Bible does not allow for the beating of your wife, only the Koran does.
Yummy, let's make a new Temple somewhere in the Olympic Mountains of Washington and restart the good 'ole Divine barbaric barbecue once again. I love beef and lamb, but I hear goat is an acquired taste. They never actually ate the bird sacrifices and instead just let them burn, but lamb and beef was served to all complete with bread, wine, and possibly spices like salt and pepper too! They sang a lot of songs, chanted a lot of Psalms and prayers, and listened to Bible passages and preachers too. I hear sometimes the women would even dance, naughty.
No it should not because same sex marriage is wrong! What don't you guys get that marriage is between one man and one women! You can't have sex with the person if your the same gender as your partner. You need a man and a women to reproduce and get more people in this world. You know why we have a lot of people today is because when God created Adam and Eve they reproduced and now everyone is here today. If there was Adam and Steve then after Adam and Steve died then there would be no one on this earth it would be over thats why God created man and women we can spread the population of this world!
No it should not because same sex marriage is wrong!
Nothing is wrong if it doesn't result in some sort of harm to someone.
What don't you guys get that marriage is between one man and one women!
You say that as if only a man and a woman can love each other to the point of wishing a life-commitment. This argument is blatantly untrue, since homosexuals want to discard a life of promiscuity and make a life-commitment to another person, just like any heterosexual.
You can't have sex with the person if your the same gender as your partner.
You cannot have biologically designed sex, no, but you can have sexual acts with a partner of the same sex that are the emotional equivalent of biologically designed sex between a male and female.
You need a man and a women to reproduce and get more people in this world.
We have too many people in the world. This number will exponentially skyrocket once we conquer death. Gay people help to solve the overpopulation problem by just existing.
You know why we have a lot of people today is because when God created Adam and Eve they reproduced and now everyone is here today.
If you ask me, Adam and Eve didn't particularly need to make 6+ billion offspring. That's a bit too many, unless we find a way to live in the oceans and in space. Until we learn how to do these things, gay people slightly help solve overpopulation. In fact, gay people are probably an adaptation of evolution to stop overpopulation.
That's right, I said it.
Gay people are an evolutionary adaptation. They are natural and shouldn't be treated like second-class citizens for being different.
If there was Adam and Steve then after Adam and Steve died then there would be no one on this earth it would be over thats why God created man and women we can spread the population of this world!
Yes, and we succeeded in populating the world. We finished that mission. What does God want now? Does he really want us to keep creating more people so that our population grows so large that we cannot support half of it?
I don't think your God wants us to suffer like that. Assuming he loves us like you say even though he condemns non-believers to Hell, even believers of a similar monotheistic deity as the Christian God.
And it harms children if they are brought into the equation.
Death will never be conquered.....never. As I said.....they can't address the common cold and what cancer has ever found a cure. In fact more diseases and sicknesses are found all the time.
To say that gays help the over population problem is hilarious. Please....they adopt and they hire women to have babies for them.
Gay people are human beings......its the sex act that is ungodly. It has nothing to do with evolution.
Your so concerned with the population......well hey your alive arent you? Your taking up space.
Do you think they should just kill all the elderly and poor and sick and handicapped......?
And it harms children if they are brought into the equation.
In what way?
To say that gays help the over population problem is hilarious. Please....they adopt
You do realize that adoption, does not increase the population, yes? Adoption only provides parents to orphans, which I think we can agree is a positive thing.
and they hire women to have babies for them.
This practice is not the norm. Even so, gay couples can do this without being married.
its the sex act that is ungodly.
Preventing gays from getting married does not prevent them from having sex.
Do you think they should just kill all the elderly and poor and sick and handicapped
And it harms children if they are brought into the equation.
How does it harm them? By influencing them to believe that being gay isn't wrong? Right, that's pretty goddamn harming to the child.
Unless you have proof that homosexual parents harm the growth of their adopted babies. Which you don't. And never will.
Death will never be conquered... never.
Evolution adapts can adapt anything to anything.
Even death.
Get over yourself.
As I said... they can't address the common cold and what cancer has ever found a cure.
We cannot cure the common cold because it's one the few viruses that evolves and adapts so quickly to medicine it's impossible to find a combination of drugs that kills the influenza virus without also killing the carrier. That's all.
Also, we are getting very close to finding a cure for many forms of cancer. I read it in a paper a month ago.
Besides, if we invent a computer so intelligent it's smarter then all of us on the planet combined, it can help us discover medicine that cures all disease, or better, a medicine that makes our immune system so powerful that we cannot be diseased and neither will our offspring.
Please... they adopt and they hire women to have babies for them.
Exactly, they adopt instead of using their own genetic material a lot of time.
And when they DO use their genetic material, they have half as less children as normal couples.
That's not an outrageous statement either.
If a man or woman has x amount of children with a partner of the opposite sex, then two men or women would have 2x amount of children. Not a gay couple. Gay couple is two of one sex, and instead of having 2x amount of children, they have only x number of children.
So either way, even if they use their genetic material, they are naturally combating overpopulation.
Its the sex act that is ungodly. It has nothing to do with evolution.
Really? Nothing to do with evolution?
Then explain the thousands of animal species that have homosexuals among them.
Also, apparently you don't know how evolution works.
In evolution, when a creature has an undesirable trait, the trait vanishes from their gene pool because the trait does not allow them to more effectively survive.
You could argue that homosexuality is not a product of evolution, except that it's a genetic trait found in many many species of animals, not just mammals.
Homosexuality is a trait that has passed through the gene pool for millions of years. If it's found in a creature as lesser as a reptile, and then found in a creature as advanced as a cat or human, then it's been in the Earthly gene pool of all multicellular organisms for millions of years.
Evolution doesn't let bad genes to circulate for long.
Since homosexuality has existed for millions of years in the gene pools of so many animals... that means the trait actually helps animal species progress.
Homosexuality helps all species that have the gene progress. Evolution lets them have the trait, so it's doing something that helps it's species. We don't know what yet, but it does. If it didn't, evolution wouldn't have allowed it to continue to circulate the gene pool.
Your so concerned with the population.
No, I'm so concerned with the living. Not the pre-living and dead.
Do you think they should just kill all the elderly and poor and sick and handicapped...?
We should if they want to choose to be euthanized, except for the mentally handicapped, since they are mentally incapable of choosing to have themselves euthanized. And even if any of these people want to be euthanized, it should only be allowed if they are in the worst amount of pain and/or suffering possible without them being unable to choose whether to live or die.
"And it harms children if they are brought into the equation."
Huh? How so?
"Death will never be conquered.....never. As I said.....they can't address the common cold and what cancer has ever found a cure. In fact more diseases and sicknesses are found all the time."
Actually, huge progress has been made recently in cancer research. A brilliant girl recently invented nanoparticles that kill cancer.http://online.wsj.com/article/AP27e6b4fd88bf44e49660ba127407d5f4.html
"To say that gays help the over population problem is hilarious. Please....they adopt and they hire women to have babies for them."
How does adoption affect population? When a gay couple adopts a child, the population does not increase magically. And regardless of the "hiring women to have babies for them" (lol), they still are more probable not to have kids than a straight person.
"Gay people are human beings......its the sex act that is ungodly. It has nothing to do with evolution."
What makes the sex act ungodly?
"Your so concerned with the population......well hey your alive arent you? Your taking up space.
Do you think they should just kill all the elderly and poor and sick and handicapped......?"
That's quite a conclusion you've jumped to. I doubt she/he means that. The population is definitely a concern, we simply aren't efficient enough to support the current population properly. It's absolutely a concern that should be addressed simply by people having less babies, which gays tend to do.
You are clearly what most consider to be a textbook bible thumper. Yes it does say in the bible that homosexuality is wrong. But in the same book of the bible it says every time a female has her period she must go out and slaughter a goat and bring its head to the alter to have herself cleansed, if this procedure is not followed the women will be ceremoniously uncleansed, and therefore intercourse with an uncleansed women is a detestable act. Do you or your spouse do this everytime you or she has their period? I don't believe you do
you speak of the slaughter of a goat but jesus then died on the cross to wash away our impuritys ps srom is my little bro or mabey big idk but you mess with him you mess withme
no he loves everyone but he cannot accept those who dispize him since they would rather be with satan or left alone and if you dont repent then you will go to hell that is why he asks you to repent so he can spend his palace with you
"no he loves everyone but he cannot accept those who dispize him since they would rather be with satan or left alone"
Like I said, infinite torture for finite sin? Under absolutely no circumstances would that be morally justifiable.
"why he asks you to repent so he can spend his palace with you"
Repent for what? Human flaws that are his creations to begin with? And why would you want to spend eternity with such a vain god? Are you that afraid of death that you would grovel at a horrid god's feet for eternity? In Mathews it is clear that only a select few will make it into heaven. Even the very liberal argument that that small percentage is the 2 billion people who claim to hold christian beliefs, that still leaves the majority of the population to burn. That is not morally justifiable, especially for an omnicient god who knew damn well before hand the exact choices each individual would make. And don't try the free will defense, as I'm sure you don't understand the reason it exists, which was to serve as a counter example to the problem of evil and over the years has picked up several problems such as the concept of divine free will.
i must say you are very good however i also must say that god yyou speak of sent his son to die for us second we used to be where we sould have the 100% chance of getting into heaven then eve ate the fruit and tricked adam now we have the intellgence it gives us so we must choose between a sekfless god or a selfish angel who tried to take over
Lol little creationists like you focus on the big bang theory entirely too much. The thing is, I don't need to make an affirmatory statement to show you are incorrect. You haven't been able to follow up on any contention I have presented to you. YOU have the burden of proof. Your belief defies the principle of conservatism. Therefor you do not have a valid position. You lose.
"and what made the thing that made the big bang?"
Do you honestly fail to see the failure in the argument you are about to use. What made god? You answer cannot be that he is eternal, as this defies the principle of conservatism, cannot be proved by the scientific method, and isn't a viable way to show that any one particular religion is correct. Because see, you make 2 very ill founded assertions. One: god exists. Two: the god that exists is the god of the bible. Neither of these claims are defensible. But of course you will just ignore everything presented to you because all your life a fiction book has been shoved down your throat. I pity you.
This isn't an argument for Christianity, while its true that nobody, not even the most esteemed theorertical physicists have any idea what occured before the big bang beleiving its all in the bible is the same as beleiving i created the universe i.e. utterly baseless
The only reason we have advanced this far in our understand is based on rational thought i.e. don't assume there are any special powers beyond your understanding, and try to interpret the world you live in based on objectively verifiable infromation you gather from experience and your analysis of your experience.
The world beleived in superstition for long time, they were called the dark ages for a reason, keep that in mind.
U are talking about a moral reason which in america doesn't have any rule in the law. LEGALY there is nothing wrong with same sex marriage. and realy it shouldn't be illegal!
Now moraly i still disagree im 13 so im part of the be who u r and flip off any one that says different (jk). But realy i think man (humans) have reached their quota for babys black ppl and asians (mostly chinese) hav made sure of that (the black part isn't racist because im black and i KNOW we have way to many babys! and the chinese thing is true) so if a woman wants to screw around with another let it be so long as they BOTH want to do it and the same for 2 men. :D
I'm gay, but also a Christian, so of course I disagree with you. However, I do agree with you with the reason why God created Adam & Eve. He did created them for the sole purpose of starting the human race. But that doesn't mean He established heterosexuality as the only sexuality. God needed, and wanted, mankind to inhabit the earth, but He can't do that with "Adam & Steve". Therefore he needed a heterosexual couple. The reason why He told them to "multiply" is because the population will grow slower if everyone was gay and unwilling to. I believe that homosexuality is a gift from God given to certain people. It would explain why there was no gays in biblical times, although David and Jonathan MIGHT have been a couple.
Also, I assumed homosexuality wasn't a sin when I read this website:
If you are a Christian you shouldn't be gay because it says in the Bible this 1
Corinthians 6:9-10 - "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (NIV).
Leviticus 18:22 - "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." (NIV)
Leviticus 20:13 - "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." (NIV)
There was gays in biblical times. When Lot and Abraham went to Sodom and Gommarah God destroyed the city because Lot and Abraham told them to stop being gay and do what is right and they kept sinning so therefore Sodom and Gommarah got distroyed.
If you call yourself a Christian you must stop being gay because you will not inheirt the kingdom of heaven if you are gay.
You should probably read the website I posted. You can still keep your views, but at least read it.
If you look at older versions of the bible, that same verse in the Corinthians doesn't have the word "homosexual". There was no Hebrew word for "homosexual", and the term was first said in the 1900s.
The Leviticus verses was mistranslated and/or misinterpreted. Besides, they don't mention lesbians as sinners. Why would the author leave that out?
I read the Sodom story many times, and I never came across the word "gay". Also, Lot offered his daughters. If "the men of Sodom" were gay, then why would Lot waste his time? And did you noticed Genesis 19:9? Note the part where it saids "...now we will deal worse with you than with them..."(NKJV). The men didn't just want to have sex with them. They wanted to treat Lot "worse" then the angels. It wouldn't make sense if the men wanted consensual sex. So this must be rape. The sin is no hospitality to strangers, not homosexuality.
Once again, I encourage you to read the website: www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.com
Well you should repent because there is a Bible verse that says that Homosexual and other stuff it mentioned that they will not inherit the kingdom of heaven. I would repent and turn away from it because its a sin.
"If you look at older versions of the bible, that same verse in the Corinthians doesn't have the word "homosexual". There was no Hebrew word for "homosexual", and the term was first said in the 1900s."
Didn't you read the paragraph above? I bet you didn't read the website I posted twice, either. You can't argue with me if you won't realize why I would approve of homosexuality.
I actually went to the website and it was pretty interesting. But I think if you call your self a Christian you shouldn't be a Homosexual and repent and don't go back to it. It says that homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of heaven, so if you want to go to heaven I would stop being a homosexual and repent and turn away from your sin.
I give up. You win. If you will keep saying the same thing, even after reading the website, there's no point in arguing with you. So let's just agree to disagree. You think I will not go to Heaven, and I think God isn't bothered by homosexuality. We'll just be going in circles anyway.
Don't listen to a thing he has to say, he can only interpret the bible from a extremely narrow minded piont of view, humananity deveoped a psychologically aversion to homosexual acts of the time span of human development and development of the mind as it adversely affected te growth and proliferation of the species.
This then found its way into the bible when it was being written, you have nothing to to be ashamed of, and nothign to repent about, these bible thembers who convince young gay abd lesbian teens that homosexuality is morally wrong convince them that there is something wrong with them as people, and that can destroy a person who beleives it.
I do not need to repent to anyone because I am everything
No you are not everything\
You don't know the meaning of take the speck out of your eye before you take it out of someone elses eye. It means first examine yourself and what have you done and fixed yourself before you try to fix someone else or correct them.
"It means first examine yourself and what have you done and fixed yourself before you try to fix someone else or correct them."
Really is that what it means. Hey what do you thinkabout the all billions of people who never heard the word of the Christian God, you know all the people who due to where they were born never got to hear about Christianity, did they go to hell?
God doesn't send people to hell. Its the person's choice whether or not to believe in God. So if they choose to not believe in God then they set themselves up for hell not God because they have free will to believe in whatever except there will be consquences.
"Its the person's choice whether or not to believe in God."
But if they never hear of Jesus, or the Christian God all their lives because they lived and died in a poverty stricken part of India then they were never given the chioce fo surely God wouldn't send them to hell, would he?
"So if they choose to not believe in God then they set themselves up for hell not God because they have free will to believe in whatever except there will be consquences."
Yes but think about it, if your born on a deserted Island, you're never going to hear about God, so you never have the chioce to accpet him or not, just like if you're born in some remote part of the world where Christianity has no influence, you may never hear of Jesus so surely God wouldn't send you to hell if the good nes never reached you, if you were never given the oppurtunity to accept him into your heart? Would he?
Ok that's your decesion. But just to let you know if you want to go to heaven your not going to inherit the kingdom of God if you continue being a homosexual. I will pray for you to stop being a homosexual and turn away from that sin and never come back to it again!
You cannot justify it's wrongness. Your argument is invalid. Of course you can have sex, how naive are you? Actually, the planet is quickly overpopulating, so we don't really need any more babies at the moment. You are a fourteen year old boy. You are limited and hindered by what your peers think of you. (About Adam and Eve- I'm going to carry around your kid for 9 months then shove it out so that you can say I was yanked out of some dude's ribcage? I don't think so, friend.) If there were no humans here, the world would be a better place, you moron.
I believe, it should not be legalized, because according to the law of nature human beings should leave their generation, it can occur only between man and woman, so I consider the marriage is an institution between only one man and one woman, no one else. Even we canimagine that such couples can adopt children,however it is the second main point of against on this issue that, the environment where theirchildren willl live will be abnormal, how such couple can explain tothe child about their family? The kid will have 2 mothers or 2 fathers, nonetheless in child's friends have gotnormal families,how same sex couple will explain it to little kid???
FIRST OF ALL, WHAT IS MARRIAGE? IT IS THE FORMAL UNION OF A MAN AND A WOMAN, TYPICALLY RECOGNIZED BY LAW, BY WHICH THEY BECOME HUSBAND AND WIFE. FROM THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE ITSELF, IT STATES THAT A MAN IS MEANT FOR A WOMAN AND A WOMAN IS MEANT FOR A MAN.
• MOST RELIGIONS CONSIDER HOMOSEXUALITY A SIN. IT IS OFFENSIVE AND A SWIPE TO THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM OF THE MAJORITY TO HAVE TO RECOGNIZE A RELATIONSHIP THEY CONSIDER SINFUL. THE LEGAL SYSTEM EVOLVED OUT OF THE LAWS CONTAINED IN THE BIBLE. WE SHOULDN'T GO EVEN FARTHER TO TEAR DOWN THOSE LAWS.
• IT WOULD WEAKEN THE DEFINITION AND RESPECT FOR THE INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE.THE 50 PERCENT DIVORCE RATE HAS ALREADY WEAKENED THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE. WE SHOULDN'T BE TAKING FURTHER STEPS TO DEFINE WHAT MARRIAGE IS. A LAW ALLOWING GAY MARRIAGE WOULD INCREASE THE NUMBER OF JOKE OR NON-SERIOUS MARRIAGES, SUCH AS A COUPLE OF FRIENDS WHO WANT TO SAVE ON TAXES. MARRIAGE IS THE MOST SACRED INSTITUTION IN THIS COUNTRY, AND EVERY SOCIETY CONSIDERS IT THE JOINING OF A MAN AND A WOMAN. IT MAKES BIOLOGICAL SENSE SINCE ONLY A MAN AND WOMAN CAN PRO-CREATE.
• IT WOULD FURTHER WEAKEN THE TRADITIONAL FAMILY VALUES ESSENTIAL TO OUR SOCIETY.THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF OUR SOCIETY AND THE THING THAT MAKES IT STRONG IS THE TRADITIONAL FAMILY OF MAN, WOMAN, AND CHILDREN. IT IS WHAT HAS SUSTAINED US THROUGH TWO WORLD WARS, TERRORIST ATTACKS, A GREAT DEPRESSION, AND NUMEROUS OTHER CHALLENGES OVER THE CENTURIES. WHILE FRIENDS & LOVERS COME AND GO, YOUR FAMILY IS ALWAYS THERE. THE MAIN REASON OUR CULTURE AND VALUES HAVE STARTED TO CRUMBLE IS THE WEAKENING OF FAMILIES. INTRODUCING ANOTHER FORM OF "FAMILY" WOULD ONLY MAKE THE SITUATION WORSE.
• IT COULD PROVIDE A SLIPPERY SLOPE IN THE LEGALITY OF MARRIAGE. GAY RIGHTS ACTIVISTS CLAIM THAT THESE MARRIAGES SHOULD BE ALLOWED BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HURT ANYONE, BUT IT COULD START A CHAIN REACTION THAT DESTROYS THE WHOLE IDEA OF MARRIAGE. IF SOMEONE WANTS TO MARRY HIS DOG, WHY SHOULDN'T HE BE ABLE TO? WHAT IF SOMEONE WANTS TO MARRY THEIR BROTHER OR PARENT? WHAT IF SOMEONE WANTS TO MARRY THEIR BLOW-UP DOLL OR HAVE 10 WIVES? UNLESS WE DEVELOP SOME FIRM DEFINITION OF WHAT A MARRIAGE IS, THE OPTIONS ARE ENDLESS.
• IT CONFUSES CHILDREN ABOUT GENDER ROLES AND EXPECTATIONS OF SOCIETY, AND ONLY A MAN & WOMAN CAN PRO-CREATE.CHILDREN LEARN ABOUT EXPECTATIONS AND GENDER ROLES FROM SOCIETY. IT'S DIFFICULT TO TEACH THE IMPORTANCE AND TRADITIONS OF THE FAMILY WHEN SUCH CONFUSION IS THRUST UPON THEM. ONLY A MAN AND WOMAN CAN BEAR CHILDREN, AND FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS, A MAN & WOMAN HEADED HOUSEHOLD HAS CARRIED GENERATIONS OF PEOPLE THROUGH LIFE.
Leviticus 18:22 identifies homosexual sex as an abomination, a detestable sin. Romans 1:26-27 declares homosexual desires and actions to be shameful, unnatural, lustful, and indecent. First Corinthians 6:9 states that homosexuals are unrighteous and will not inherit the kingdom of God. Since both homosexual desires and actions are condemned in the Bible, it is clear that homosexuals "marrying" is not God's will, and would be, in fact, sinful.
History argues against gay marriage. Modern secular psychology recognizes that men and women are psychologically and emotionally designed to complement one another. In regard to the family, psychologists contend that a union between a man and woman in which both spouses serve as good gender role models is the best environment in which to raise well-adjusted children. Psychology argues against gay marriage. In nature/physicality, clearly, men and women were designed to “fit” together sexually. With the “natural” purpose of sexual intercourse being procreation, clearly only a sexual relationship between a man and a woman can fulfill this purpose. Nature argues against gay marriage.
The issue here is not forbidding anybody to love, but put love at the right perspective. Yes love is a natural thing so we can fall in love to anybody, we can even love and hurt many times, we are humans thats why we experience these. But love isnt just about feelings, it also comes with RESPONSIBILITIES. it doesnt give me the consent to marry for the simple reason that i LOVE them, but because marriage, which is binded by LOVE, is a commitment with RESPONSIBILITY.
We marry more than the reason of Love, we marry not only because of loving the other person but along with it is the responsibility to become a husband, wife, and a family that will nurture the future generation. A husband is a MAN and a wife is a WOMAN, which identifies their responsibility in their FAMILIES. And in this family that we have created, in my example I may love a fellow woman but i cannot marry her because my responsibility is to be a woman in this society. U see, we all have our PURPOSES, the reason why we have our IDENTITIES. So why confuse our identity for the reason of love? Love is a feeling that can be given to anybody either in a man or a woman, I may admire a beautiful woman, I may even admire a handsome gay, I may love a very old man, a married man, or whoever I WANTED to love, but my love isnt enough reason to FORGET my identity that I am FOR a MAN, who is also FOR ME. And if I can give love to anybody, I also love MYSELF, and that is being who I am, naturally as I AM.
We need laws to provide limits, boundaries, and to control our "natures."
I think you can have a relationship of love and commitment and trust and understanding that doesn't need a marriage certificate associated with it.
IF GOD HAD INTENDED THE HUMAN RACE TO BE FULFILLED THROUGH BOTH HETEROSEXUAL AND HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE, HE WOULD HAVE DESIGNED OUR BODIES TO ALLOW REPRODUCTION THROUGH BOTH MEANS AND MADE BOTH MEANS OF SEXUAL INTERCOURSE HEALTHY AND NATURAL..
We need God's laws, for His laws were put into place for our benefit...for our good. And "in the keeping of them is great reward.
