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.
It is not a matter if they should have the same right, one of the issues with Prop 8 is that it was put on a ballet and voted on. Majority voted Yes, so if this is a democracy then majority rules. If Prop 8 gets overturned then it shows that the votes didn't count.
The definition of marriage is between a man and a woman, so why do gays even WANT to get married? It does not apply to them. However if they were united, it would be clear that they are committed to their same sex partner and proud of it, not trying to hide it behind the word marriage for people to wonder or assume their partner is of a different sex.
aw crap now that I said 'amen' it will thought that I am overly religious. like somehow because I have spiritual center I am unable to have opinions other than those spoon fed to people by the ruling theocracy.
different word. . .this is not same but different. . . it plain is different.
So you think love between two people of the same sex cannot be the same as love between two straight people? Marriage has to do with love. If you're worried about redefining marriage then just look back in history. We already had to redefine the definition of marriage for interracial couples.
1) please get this clear people. . .in no way have I said, implied, typed, thought or imagined that gay or lesbian people are not capable of loving, parenting, nurturing, caring, bonding and in general being decent human beings . . .and until I do please refrain from say this is how I feel.
2nd point. the race issue. not applicable. you guys already get to sit anywhere on the bus.
if you wanna be called straight. be straight. otherwise pick another word. cause marriage is straight, it means man+woman
First, let's clear up the first assumption you make. No I am not gay. I support gay marriage, not because I have a personal stake in it but because I believe it's the right thing to do.
Here is what you said:
different word. . .this is not same but different. . . it plain is different
My point was that we have already redefined what marriage is, and for the better. What reasons do we have for not changing it again? If you truly believe that homosexual love is equal to straight love then why not allow them to have the same legal unions that straights have? By making it a different union you are implying that it is somehow not equal.
Finally, if we took your idea and went by the strict definition of every word then women would not have equal rights. The declaration of independence says "all men are created equal." We have expanded the definition of "men" in this case to include all people.
how have we redefined marriage? just because antiquated antediluvian inbred hill dwellers decided to require the 'official seal of approval' for white and blacks to be able to marry. . .does not mean this is not outside the realm of human behavior.
they are still man+woman. . .most of the time issues of skin should not be an issue. Sadly we sometimes need laws to circumvent stupidity.
BUT
in this case it is different. man+woman is not the same as man+man. and the difference is if not huge. . .significant.
now with the declaration of independence reference you are again confusing marriage with a right again.
You contradict yourself. Your explanation as for why interracial marriage was allowed was because it was "not outside the realm of human behavior." Clearly homosexual couples are inside the realm of human behavior, otherwise there wouldn't be an issue. Also, interracial marriage wasn't just something hicks and inbreds wanted to oppose, it was a major issue. The arguments there were surprisingly similar to today: it would violate the sanctity of marriage.
If marriage isn't a right then why do straight people have it? Can we take it away from them? I still don't understand your opposition. If two homosexuals who love each other get married, how does this affect you at all? Are you afraid a lesbian couple is going to move next door and keep you up with their noisy lovemaking? If this is your only issue, I would be happy to switch houses when it occurs.
what is your freakin issue that you keep assuming I have a problem with people who are gay. . .NOT.
maybe you do, but I don't.
marriage is not a right. I did not get married to fullfill a list of rights I must have. I personally got married to share my life with the person I hoped would (and did) become the father of my children.
I do think marriage is man+woman.
pick a word any word to mean man+man and/or woman+woman.
you don't want marriage for gay people (otherwise the mormons would be thrilled) you want to change the word marriage to include gay people. Now see we only differ a little bit here.. .I agree gay people should not be forced to marry the opposite sex (even if it would make mormons happy) BUT I like marriage the way it is.
and again I say quit dragging the black people into this . . gay people can sit on the bus and drink in any water fountain north and west of the Mason Dixon Line. . .so don't get all Martin Luther King Jr on me. . .
I never said once that you have an issue with homosexuals, you already said that you aren't so and I assume you're telling the truth. My question is, if you believe homosexuals to be equal to straights and have the same capacity for love, then why not allow them to have marriage. It's not an accusation it's a question that I would like answered.
Second, I'm not sure what you mean by "I did not get married to fullfill a list of rights I must have". Is this what you think I'm inferring? Are rights in your opinion obligations? Because in no way is this what I am implying. According to Wikipedia "Rights are legal or moral entitlements or permissions." Why shouldn't homosexuals be allowed to have the same dream of getting married and sharing their life with someone they love? It's not an obligation, it's an entitlement that everyone deserves. "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are what the Declaration of Independence said we have a right to. Marriage falls into pursuit of happiness.
Why should we make a distinction between a homosexual marriage and a straight marriage. At the very core they're the same thing: a union between two people who love each other. Gender has nothing to do with it! This is what I want...marriage to be defined as the union between any two people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together.
Finally, I am not getting "all Martin Luther King Jr." on you. What I am doing is giving relevant examples of times in our nations history when people have stood in the way of giving more rights to expanding amounts of people. This is the direction history has gone. More rights for more people. This is why I know that you are fighting a losing battle because, with very few exceptions, we have moved towards more and more personal liberties and this will be no exception.
okay lets look at it from this point of view, if the whole hype is because the definition of marriage is "the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies" then why not change it? how hard is it to change the meaning in the dictionaries? i mean if mcdonalds can fight over a words meaning then surely we can to. everyone is all about equal rights... the women, the blacks, and now the gays. both women and blacks won their fight the gay community will win theirs to in a matter of time. why not go ahead and make it an easy transition? if you do not know a honest hard working man is gay you wont harm him in the slightest bit but find out he is gay and youll beat him in a dark ally behind where he works. thats bogus. no one should "hide" behind the word. its word that is meant for status. someone should be proud to say such a word. the way i see it you have to pay for a marriage license so it will benefit the economy everyone is complaining about. and i have seen far more ignorant people with far worse licenses!!! people killing people while having hunters license, all the horrid drivers with theirs. and then look at the things you do not have to have a license for!!! raising children!!!! which in my opinion is far more important we have say who can or cant have those! god knows there are far worse parents than gay guys.it was okay for the greeks to be openly guy forever ago. guys in high positions of society even. so please get real
Should blacks be allowed to drink water, but just not at the same fountains as whites? This is the issue I have with the separate but equal stance of some people.
By saying Gays can have the same rights, but not get married is saying that homosexual love is somehow inferior to heterosexual love.
No, not inferior. Are women inferior to men? Are men inferior to women? Should we just get rid of those two words and replace them with person? Language should be as unambiguous as possible.
Yes there are different titles. Homosexuals and Heterosexuals. This is pretty unambiguous. We're not talking about language though, we're talking about an institution. Love is love whether it be heterosexual or homosexual love.
Should we add specifications to everything? I bought my 18 year old white male T.V. My friend bought her 19 year old female T.V. No, it's a T.V. no matter who buys it. So should marriage be. No matter who it is making the commitment it should be called marriage.
Boo! That's no fun. If everyone did that we wouldn't have a site at all. It would be people just be people getting along. Can you imagine how terrible that would be?
Would it be easier, yes, but would it actually solve of the problem and not be a violation of the constitution and prior precedents... Hell No!
Brown vs Board of Education showed most assuredly that separate is most definitely not equal. As soon as you come up with another word, oh, like civil union, you have automatically made their "union" inferior to heterosexual monogamous "marriages" and have relegated their relationships to a social underclass creating discrimination.
For the same commitment they should be granted the same rights, anything less than that is discrimination.
No, that states that somehow gays are inferior. It's segregation, as the other person pointed out blacks were allowed to drink at water fountains just not at the same ones. And if were going to give gays the same rights whats the big deal about calling it marriage?
I'm just prioritizing. Get the same rights as married couples first, then work on the word. It's easier to get the rights. Harder to get the word. Why wait on getting the rights?
Or Unity could equal woman+woman, but regardless, if they dedicate their lives to each other just the same as a man+woman, they deserve the same rights. Plus, it is not like all men and women respect the institution of marriage with the high divorce rates that are prevalent in today's society!
