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.
They can be in love without getting married. You haven't really made a point there. If you mean marriage, then who are you to say they should be able to do things. Your belief that they should is no more valid than someone else that says "Of course they shouldn't". It being self-evident to you is no better than it being self-evident to them.
So you meet a guy, you like him, then.... you get married and hope love follows? Or you love first and then decide to marry? The first way sounds silly, maybe that's just me though. And the second one involves love without marriage.
You seem to be assuming that every homosexual agrees with this point. Maybe they have good reasons and in fact do want to. You have no right to say what everyone else should want.
Now you have provided a little justification, which I agree with.
You seem to be assuming that every homosexual agrees with this point
I've never said that.
The first thing you wrote just dosen't make sence. What does it matter how you felt in love? Everyone has the right to get married.
Also, there are many many gay couple, who really wants to have children.
But unmarried people don't get to adopt. And the gay's aren't allowed to get married. So their chance of having a child are small, if not impossible.
Also, if they were allowed to get married and then adopt, then alot of children will get homes, its a win win situation, and I can't see why anyone loses at any point?
Does it bother you seeing two men or women together?
Does it bother anyone seing two men or women together?
Im not saying ALL gays should get married. The ones who want to, they should do it.
Okay, don't worry about that bit, it doesn't matter.
You just saying you think they should have the right is the same as someone else saying they shouldn't have the right.
Also, there are many many gay couple, who really wants to have children.
But unmarried people don't get to adopt. And the gay's aren't allowed to get married. So their chance of having a child are small, if not impossible.
Unmarried people can adopt, at least in the UK and US, but google tells me it makes the process a little easier, so that's a good point that I hadn't considered.
Depends. Two men kissing is fine but I wouldn't really want to see them getting up to their private business. With women, I'd be quite happy to watch that all day.
Even kissing does bother a lot of people though, and I see that as being their own fault. Unfortunately, the majority of voters seem to be in this category. And democracy is founded on the voters wishes.
Unmarried people can adopt, at least in the UK and US, but google tells me it makes the process a little easier, so that's a good point that I hadn't considered.
oh sorry, I wasn't aware of that.
Where I come from you have to be married if you want to adopt, and you can't marry the same sex.
Depends. Two men kissing is fine but I wouldn't really want to see them getting up to their private business. With women, I'd be quite happy to watch that all day.
Even kissing does bother a lot of people though, and I see that as being their own fault. Unfortunately, the majority of voters seem to be in this category. And democracy is founded on the voters wishes.
I don't get what you're saying here, and I have no idea what difference it makes considering what you want to watch, and what you don't.
Are there men/women doing their buisness outside you're home? or in public? I don't see alot of that around here, but who knows.
Where I come from you have to be married if you want to adopt, and you can't marry the same sex.
That is a pretty appalling system.
I don't get what you're saying here, and I have no idea what difference it makes considering what you want to watch, and what you don't.
You asked me if it bothered me/others to see them. That is my feelings on the matter. I don't tend to see it unless I happen to be in a gay bar, but that isn't often. While I don't really care, some people do. And unfortunately 51% of voters are allowed to oppress everyone else. My concern is that gay marriage is being voted against, which means that more people don't like seeing it than those that can be bothered to vote for something which will probably never affect them. And while we may disagree with the result, it's hard to argue with democracy.
You asked me if it bothered me/others to see them. That is my feelings on the matter. I don't tend to see it unless I happen to be in a gay bar, but that isn't often. While I don't really care, some people do. And unfortunately 51% of voters are allowed to oppress everyone else. My concern is that gay marriage is being voted against, which means that more people don't like seeing it than those that can be bothered to vote for something which will probably never affect them. And while we may disagree with the result, it's hard to argue with democracy.
Wow, I didn't think people could ever be so stupid. They just want people to look at them selves, than to look at gays
Im not saying that its your opinion, but if people really think that, they're crazy.
I really don't know wich side you're on actually :P Its okay to be natural tho
I probably should clarify. I'm here because it interests me to know what reasons people have. I support do support gay marriage. In England the debate has come down to whether or not a legally identical thing (Civil-partnerships) should be renamed marriage. In my mind, both sides are being pedantic over wording and I think it's pretty pointless. However, if it was a matter of race, I would support changing "black marriage" to just marriage, so that's the view I have to hold here as well.
They're not crazy, they're Christian. They have been taught forever to overthrow their own view of morality and reason, and instead accept what some guy in a big building up the road tells them. I think I can forgive them on the grounds of ignorance. I can't forgive the millions of straight men and women that couldn't be bothered to vote simply because the issue didn't directly affect them.
That's perfectly reasonable, unless you're attracted to woman. For people who are attracted to the same sex and are religious, it causes them a lot of unnecessary distress. I assume that isn't the case for you though, so that is a perfectly good system.
The bible says a lot of crazy things, that's why most Christians don't read it.
The bible says a lot of crazy things, that's why most Christians don't read it.
Yeah, its sad.. or at least I think its sad. But its also good if you go to church, and the priest will explain to everyone, and they'll learn to understand it.
it causes them a lot of unnecessary distress.
I so agree on this.
I've seen CHRISTIAN parents kick they're children out of the house, becouse they don't live up to the parents christian standards. Some teenagers get pregnant, find out they're gay or something else, that don't 'fit in' the church.
And thats aweful. When christians do that, I wonder if there is any difference between islam and christianity after all. You know christians are going around and telling people how good and kind they are? And the next you know their children are on their own on the street.
Not only underage children. I know a lesbian, who's christian parents didn't want anything to do with her, when she told them who she really was. She was 20 back then, and she has never spoken to her parents since.
This has nothing to do about their actions. Listen, they will be confronted and dealt with in the end, not my problem. I do not want to control them from being together, I honestly don't care. However, they DO NOT get to claim the title of marriage and receive the benefits of marriage when there is no such a thing! http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage read it and weep!
It is not recognized by our constitution as a right. The end. And it won't get added. If a state wants to legalize it they can try.
Personally, I say don't legalize it nor make it illegal, that way it will not be legally recognized however a person can either deny or accept "ceremonially" performing a wedding for them.
Marriage is a civil ceremony, and therefore a civil right. Someone wanting the same rights as you is not asking for "special" rights, just the same ones you have.
You can't seriously use a dictionary definition to argue against gay marriage, especially when the definition of words and phrases changes all the time.
Fact of the matter is, any modern society worth its salt is always changing. Fifty years ago inter-racial relationships were unthinkable, let alone marriages. Once upon a time marriage had more to do with status and family importance than anything else. The world will not collapse due to gay marriage and those who feel it will are ignorant of history.
They don't have to be married to do so. Besides, that has nothing to do with my point about them not having a special set of rights that no one else has!
Saying gay people can't be married is like saying black people can't be married. It is completely bigoted.
You Christians are saying that gay marriage is not Christian because of the bible. Well, if you want to stick to biblical standards of marriage, then you have to stone women who cheat on their husbands. Also, you are allowed to take as many wives as you like. Oh and by the way, women, you are your husbands property according to the "Good Book".
So much for "a Christian tradition". I don't really understand why gays want to be part of Christianity anyway, it's like being a Jewish Nazi.
People should be "allowed" to be with whoever they want. And they're going to. Even if we decided to be unconstitutional and dissolve the separation of church and state how would you enforce peoples personal relationships? So naturally people should be legally allowed to be with whoever they want.
But that doesn't mean we have to change the definition of marriage. The protection of marriage is about protecting the definition of marriage by law. So it's not a question of gay people being oppressed.
So "gay marriage" does exist in some states. So it's more a question of should the definition of marriage be changed at a national level. Why? Marriage is a religious thing. So it all seems kind of ironic. Most People for gay marriage are not religious.
It would be a good compromise if they formed some other type of union. I think they just wan't what they can't have. It's like two children and a toy.
Marriage has been swallowed by religion. Records of marriage go back as far as we have records. It is something that has essentially always happened. The main religions didn't exist back then. Essentially, we chose to have marriage defined like that in a time when gays were oppressed. If we created it, why can't we change it?
I don't think we should deny them the benefits that married people get, man and woman, because it is basically the same thing. You can call it what you want, but they should be treated equally.
I think it's useless talking about the dictionary definition of marriage. Marriage is based on love, this is important. Honestly I think that there is no difference in love if people are of different sex or no, the feelings and the affection are important. Futhermore we cannot judge other people's love. If they want to get married it's their own right!
There is no such thing as gay marriage just like there is no such thing as gay rights, everyone has the same rights no one has different rights than others. Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman, with one of the main purposes being to procreate and have children, once you take that ability away there is no way it can be a marriage. This does not include those who just can't have babies because of sperm count or medical reasons.
everyone has the same rights no one has different rights than others.
So why on Earth are you arguing against gay marriage (you're on the wrong side, by the way).
Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman,
This was pointed out to me by Liber. You are right in saying that marriage is between a man and a woman, but only because the word structure necessitates it. And I think we'd live in a boring world if we didn't stretch definitions and rules every now and again.
with one of the main purposes being to procreate and have children,
Find me a single dictionary that says this.
once you take that ability away there is no way it can be a marriage.
So the infertile can't marry?
This does not include those who just can't have babies because of sperm count or medical reasons
This has nothing to do about their actions. Listen, they will be confronted and dealt with in the end, not my problem. I do not want to control them from being together, I honestly don't care. However, they DO NOT get to claim the title of marriage and receive the benefits of marriage when there is no such a thing! http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage read it and weep!
It is not recognized by our constitution as a right. The end. And it won't get added. If a state wants to legalize it they can try.
Personally, I say don't legalize it nor make it illegal, that way it will not be legally recognized however a person can either deny or accept "ceremonially" performing a wedding for them.
the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. Antonyms: separation.
b.
a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage. Antonyms: separation.
2.
the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage. Synonyms: matrimony. Antonyms: single life, bachelorhood, spinsterhood, singleness; separation.
3.
the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage. Synonyms: nuptials, marriage ceremony, wedding. Antonyms: divorce, annulment.
4.
a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage.
5.
any close or intimate association or union: the marriage of words and music in a hit song. Synonyms: blend, merger, unity, oneness; alliance, confederation. Antonyms: separation, division, disunion, schism.
There is no mention of the reason for marriage being to Pro-create, the only reason people should get married should be because they love each other and if two Gay people love each other they should be allowed to marry. You can Pro-create without getting married and I know many straight married people who dont have Children they married because they loved each other not to have children and Gay people should be allowed this right as well
This has nothing to do about their actions. Listen, they will be confronted and dealt with in the end, not my problem. I do not want to control them from being together, I honestly don't care. However, they DO NOT get to claim the title of marriage and receive the benefits of marriage when there is no such a thing! http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage read it and weep!
It is not recognized by our constitution as a right. The end. And it won't get added. If a state wants to legalize it they can try.
Personally, I say don't legalize it nor make it illegal, that way it will not be legally recognized however a person can either deny or accept "ceremonially" performing a wedding for them.
This has nothing to do about their actions. Listen, they will be confronted and dealt with in the end, not my problem. I do not want to control them from being together, I honestly don't care. However, they DO NOT get to claim the title of marriage and receive the benefits of marriage when there is no such a thing! http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage read it and weep!
It is not recognized by our constitution as a right. The end. And it won't get added. If a state wants to legalize it they can try.
Personally, I say don't legalize it nor make it illegal, that way it will not be legally recognized however a person can either deny or accept "ceremonially" performing a wedding for them.
Please read my first argument, where you will see me clearly accept that a gay marriage is technically impossible. However, we can bend the rules a little bit, and Merriam Webster agrees with me. I quote
the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage .
So, as you can see, gay marriage is possible in a non-technical way.
It is not recognized by our constitution as a right. The end. And it won't get added. If a state wants to legalize it they can try.
Firstly, that's your constitution, not mine. Now, I'll be honest. I don't know a great deal about the constitution. But I know that it's not the be all and end all of everything. Public support for gay marriage is at an all time high. The President publicly came out to support it. If that's not convincing enough, I don't know what is.
I don't really know what you mean with this comment, are you against or not?
It is the most normal thing to want to marry the one you love, and I don't think anyone should stop ANYONE!! not matter sex or skincolor. The only thing I want to stop when talking 'marriage', is kids marriage. You know, old men marrying little girs like they do in Iran and other islamic contries.
I think you should put your strenght on stopping those psycho marriages, instead of stopping innocent love between two men or two women.
But I also believe, that every man and woman has their own right to chose what they want to believe. When you come with an argument based on the bible, you force them to believe the same you believe, in a way.
If christians have so much against gay marriage, then don't get married to the same sex as you, but why make others do it too? How a man wants to live, isn't it his choice? or hers? Or is it yours Tim?
Im a christian who respects that others can believe something else than me.
And I believe in that humans have rights, and one of those rights are to decide wich religion they wanna believe, or if they don't wanna believe in anything at all.
When you accept someone elses religion, you also have to accept that the law can't be made by your religions laws.
The bible also says you should stone children who don't obey their parents to death. Are you supporting that thing too? bc according to you, if you don't support everything that the bible says, your apparently not a real christian.
Im a christian, no one has the right to tell me Im not.
I don't support gay marriage, I don't think its right. But I still think everyone has the right to think for themselves, and not let me or you make decissions for them.
Gays do have extra rights ! I don't care if they get married as long as they don't try to change religions I'm catholic I don't belive in it but I don't care what other people do as long as they don't bother me
Someone took my point and they do have extra rights my friend beat up a Homo and got extra time for beating up a Homo they are protected under law u just can't beat them if u do u get alote more extra time and its not in the bill of rights becuase the homos were chiken shits and didn't want to come out and say they were Homo at that time
This makes no sense, how could your friend have been given extra time for beating up a Homo if the Homo was too Chicken Shit to admit it, if the person they beat up admitted it and your friend got extra time it was probably because it was classed as a hate crime which I assume is dealt with in a sterner manner than any other violent crime and would be dealt with the same if they beat up someone because they were a different Religion or Race. Did your friend beat the other person up because the other person was Gay or was there another motive?
The guy picked a fight with him and he called him a Homo right before they got in a fight he didn't know he was actually gay so they gave him extra time on top of fighting so yea it was considered a hate crime
No they don't have extra rights! Show me in the constitution where they do? Wait what? They don't? That's right! No they don't have extra rights and you are no practicing catholic because you are going against church doctrine. Course, the majority of Catholics in America are Hippocrates anyways!
I'm quite confident there is no valid justification for banning same sex couples from a legally recognized marriage. Stop being so involved in people's romantic and sex lives. It's honestly a bit creepy.
This has nothing to do about their actions. Listen, they will be confronted and dealt with in the end, not my problem. I do not want to control them from being together, I honestly don't care. However, they DO NOT get to claim the title of marriage and receive the benefits of marriage when there is no such a thing! http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage read it and weep!
It is not recognized by our constitution as a right. The end. And it won't get added. If a state wants to legalize it they can try.
Personally, I say don't legalize it nor make it illegal, that way it will not be legally recognized however a person can either deny or accept "ceremonially" performing a wedding for them.
The government has no legitimate interest in denying it, the constitution does not, and it even states this, list all rights of a people, there are others than what it states, and the current denial of it is nothing more than a defacto violation of the separation of church and state.
Yes it should. The principal argument of who doesn't want to the law allow that say that it's against the Bible. So, following that type of thinking, let's see what you probably doesn't follow AND is on it... 1 Corinthians 11:3
3 "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God."
1 Corinthians 11:7 - 9
8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
Esther 1:22
22 For he sent letters into all the king's provinces, into every province according to the writing thereof, and to every people after their language, that every man should bear rule in his own house, and that [it] should be published according to the language of every people.
THE BIBLE IS SEXIST! GO SEARCH IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME. NOW, ANSWER ME, DO YOU AGREE WITH THIS? DOES THE LAW AGREE WITH THIS? DOES THE SOCIETY IN THE GENERAL AGREE? SO WHY A MAN CAN'T MARRIAGE ANOTHER MAN AND A WOMAN CAN'T MARRIAGE ANOTHER WOMAN? ANSWER ME THAT.
Support for same sex marriage is growing rapidly and it IS only a matter of time before it is legal in ALL the states. I believe it is mostly due to the younger generations such as myself. Older generations were mind-fucked into believing many things were "OK" such as slavery and even after that was abolished racism was practiced in many households. as I'm sure after Gay marriage is legal there will be many homophobic households. Its like someones Dad being a racist and 20 years down the line they find themselves spurting a racist comment and catch themselves not even believing their own words. It was forced into their young minds. Younger generations have been increasingly allowed to explore their OWN beliefs the result of which is increased support for things that older generations were protecting out of tradition. Just because something is tradition doesn't mean its right.
Since a ritual that binds two people together as life-mates has absolutely no harmful effect upon society, and since romantic love is regarded as a good thing, I'd like to know why disallowing gay marriage is a good thing.
If it's not harmful, why outlaw it? Because you're squeamish? So, you'd let your squeamishness prevent two people from performing a ritual that harms no one and only strengthens their relationship? What kind of immoral douche are you to allow mere squeamishness to let you do something so selfish?
Except, of course, people against gay marriage would say I'm wrong. Though I'm not. They are all just squeamish, and they use pointless excuses to try and reason away that they're just squeamish. But really, they're all just pointless excuses for you to justify your selfish behavior of wanting to stop people from loving each other to their fullest potential.
I take issue with the word "allowed." Government should have no jurisdiction over marriage. The concept of marriage "license" is not only an anachronism, but it is invalid in its original purpose.
Yes, gay marriage should be allowed. Many people in my family are so against it because it goes against their religious and political principles, but I am not, and I just don't understand, why so many people have to have such a grudge against them being married. It's not like gay people are harming anyone by getting married, so what is the big deal? The government should allow gay marriage in every state, it seems to violate the freedom of choice, for gay people.
Why is it such a big deal about gay marriage?It's not like it's going to hurt our planet!I mean,the law isn't always right!It's just wrong to keep people from marrying others who they love.That's why our society's messed up,because of people being judge mental (there are also other reasons why are society is messed up)!You don't like being kept from the person you love,so why should they be kept from theirs'?Just be happy for them!Respect them and their' love!
Actually at this rate earth will be overpopulated anyway. So the more gay men and women the merrier (no pun intended) and as for "no more babies." just because you allow some gay men and women to marry doesn't mean every man and women on the planet will want to fuck the same sex. I'm completely FOR gay marriage but I don't feel the urge to go marry another dude. your argument sounds like that of an 8 year old.
There are many practical reasons for not allowing same sex marriage. I forgot a few but one I can recall goes like this: studies show that children need a mother and a father for parental role models. It keeps the child’s emotional health in check. Also the bible calls gay marriage unnatural and basically, wrong. If you are a Christian, you are a hypocrite if you support gay marriage.
Bhagwad no one is trying to ban single parents, but the facts are most children thrive when there is a mother and farther around ,yes people spit and become single parents but they do not choose to do this, people in gay marriges choose to put any child they bring into there household in to an alien situation to be brought up by to people of the same genderfor there own whimsth this is child abuse and we only allow it to appease the namby pamby equal rights brigade, well what about the rights of the child to be brought up by a mother and farther.,,,,,,,,,,,,WE ARE GLASS
The studies only show that it is generally preferable for a child to be raised by a couple, or more, due to there being more income, emotional support, and so on. The gender of the couple, has, to my knowledge, not been shown to matter.
Care to provide a peer reviewed scientific study which doesn't just list the rest of societies bigotry as a problem to support your claim? Or to ya know, actually make an argument.
Let me just say, gay patnerships should be allowed but not gay marrige,my farther was gay but he hid the fact and walked out on us to pursue his gay lifestyle when i was 4.A marrige is to all intents to allow to people of the oppiste sex to procreate gays can simply not do this, nor should they be allowed to have children as my experienceof life showed me how much i missed in not having a farther so why deny that right to a child to fullfill your own selfish wantspeople can bleat all they want if you are gay fine ilve together but do not force churches to marry you.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,we are so fragile
3rd; If gays could marry and were accepted, your father wouldn't of used your mother to hide and try to deny who he was, further more there may of been less social stigma and he might of stuck around.
4th. Marriage, in this sense, is strictly a governmental institution; NO one, or at least very few, is even hinted that churches should be forced to marry anyone. There are legitimate legal rights and privileges granted to married couples by government, and there is no secular reason to deny them these rights based on their sexuality. Marriage is not only a religious or cultural thing, but a governmental one.
A marrige is to all intents to allow to people of the oppiste sex to procreate
Well, if that's a reason to ban homosexuals from marriage, then along the same line of thought, then any couple that is infertile or chooses not to have children should not be permitted to get married. And I didn't have a father either, and it wasn't bad, so buck up. Some people have great parents, some don't. The number and the genders don't matter if they're great parents, and don't improve bad parents. Plus, I imagine all the kids trapped in the foster system would love to have any family, even a gay one. Who says they are going to force the churches to marry them? I'm just concerned about the governmental benefits.
Marraige is a christian tradition, and homosexuality is against Christianity. If you want to be gay then don't bother getting married, just sleep/live together, Churches shouldn't be forced to hold gay marraiges.
You seem to be mistaking "tradition" for "monopoly". (I assume) You don't mind Muslims marrying and they certainly aren't Christian.
And if you can be bothered to check the bible, there is nothing in there against homosexuality which doesn't have something silly nearby. Since you ignore the sillies, you should also ignore the homophobia.
But I would agree that Churches shouldn't be forced to hold them.
"You seem to be mistaking "tradition" for "monopoly". (I assume) You don't mind Muslims marrying and they certainly aren't Christian."
Of course Christians have a monopoly on marraige it's their institution, wy is it that homosexuals need to be married in the first place? A civili partnership is good enough for them.
Anyway, the same applies for other religions and their forms of marraige.
"And if you can be bothered to check the bible, there is nothing in there against homosexuality which doesn't have something silly nearby. Since you ignore the sillies, you should also ignore the homophobia."
The Biblie is clearly against homosexuality, that is common knowledge.
Nope, marriage is dated back further even than Judaism. You just adopted it and now seem to think it belongs to you.
That is common knowledge, but that doesn't make it true. Why not check for yourself? I don't know why but Christians I talk to never seem to want to actually check the bible. If you do look, notice how each banning of homosexuality is nearby something you certainly don't follow. For example, Leviticus bans homosexuality and wearing clothes made of multiple fabrics. Jesus does say that "dogs" don't get into heaven, but also includes anyone that's ever told a lie. This kind of thing occurs at every reference to homosexuality, believe me, I checked. Why is it you are happy to ignore all these details? Obviously because they are silly. But why then don't you view the homosexuality stuff as silly? Misleading representatives of the church I suspect that are trying to spread their own personal preferences, in the same way the bible was recently used to defend slavery.
"Nope, marriage is dated back further even than Judaism. You just adopted it and now seem to think it belongs to you."
Let me rewrite my sentance: Religious people have a monopoly on marraige, my reasoning still applies for Judaism.
"That is common knowledge, but that doesn't make it true. Why not check for yourself? I don't know why but Christians I talk to never seem to want to actually check the bible. If you do look, notice how each banning of homosexuality is nearby something you certainly don't follow. For example, Leviticus bans homosexuality and wearing clothes made of multiple fabrics. Jesus does say that "dogs" don't get into heaven, but also includes anyone that's ever told a lie. This kind of thing occurs at every reference to homosexuality, believe me, I checked. Why is it you are happy to ignore all these details? Obviously because they are silly. But why then don't you view the homosexuality stuff as silly? Misleading representatives of the church I suspect that are trying to spread their own personal preferences, in the same way the bible was recently used to defend slavery."
Yes this is from Leviticus, but you can't state that because the Bible says one "silly" thing in one book, everything in the book becomes null and void.
You might want to look more closely at what I said. Marriage was around before Judaism. In fact it is dated back as far as we have records.
Once again, look more closely at what I said. That is Leviticus 20:13. I don't need to search the entire book to find something you don't believe. It amuses me that you didn't even look 4 lines higher, at 20:9 when you were demonstrating how well you know the bible.
"For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him."
Murder everyone, even small children, that has ever cursed at their parents? That would require the deaths of millions of 10 year olds. I assume you don't believe this. This is in fact said in the very same speech that your quote comes from.
We can even go all the way down to 20:18, where it clearly states that having sex with your wife while she is menstruating should be met with exile. Seems a little harsh considering it is possible for it to start during sex.
Then it states things that have been dis-proven. "If a man shall lie with his uncle's wife ... they shall die childless." (20:20), so even if you have shady morals regarding periods and child murder, you cannot claim that everything in this chapter is true.
All I am trying to say is that you are choosing passages to belief and passages to ignore. Since you cannot reasonably deny that, I would just hope that perhaps you'll start ignoring the bigotry and focusing on the love.
"You might want to look more closely at what I said. Marriage was around before Judaism. In fact it is dated back as far as we have records. "
Evidence? Considering how marraige predates any recordable history I don't see how you can come to such a conclusion.
"All I am trying to say is that you are choosing passages to belief and passages to ignore. Since you cannot reasonably deny that, I would just hope that perhaps you'll start ignoring the bigotry and focusing on the love."
Those passages were written at a time when murder and exile were the only forms of harsh punishment, we are talking about people who live of the land and travel round in tents, how else are you going to deter them from sinning? Also, you must also take into account the Jesus taught us to help sinners peaceful, hence the fact that we don't go around slaughter gays and adulterers.
"Evidence? Considering how marraige predates any recordable history I don't see how you can come to such a conclusion."
Sorry what? What is it you want evidence for? I'm merely pointing out that the world religions of today did not invent marriage.
I like how you have completely ignored important details, including the main point I was making.
Are you seriously telling me that you agree with those punishments, simply because it was a different time? You think people need death threats in order to not do serious crimes? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for executing murderers for example, but people that swear at their parents? People that don't scream loudly enough while being raped? Do you agree with this? Will you not concede that there are things in the bible that are wrong? Do you refute even the things said that have been proven to be false? Are you so commuted to the defence of a book that you have never read that you will try to harm other human beings because of things you have picked up from others?
It's clear to me from your last post that you have never studied the bible. The promise of eternal happiness is apparently not enough to encourage you to read a book. I would suggest looking up Jesus's actions before you make assumptions about his life. What is it exactly that you want me to take into account? Be specific. Actually do some research and tell me what you want me to consider. If you don't, then I will continue to base my opinion on Jesus from my own research, and believe me, he does not paint a pretty picture.
I have started to get the impression that you are an idiot. If your next response does not contain at least one intelligent sentence I won't bother replying. I am almost certain this will be the case, so enjoy living your ignorant life.
" Neither you or me can deny them the right to marry!"
Yes we can, the right to marry only applies to a man and a woman of appropriate age, if we give homosexuals the right to marry then pedophiles can call for the same right.
"If you were a good christian you would support love."
Pah, the ramblings of an imbecile, what would you know about good Christianity.
You know, I find the human insufferable when they are not gracious enough in belief to use a sporting modicum of respect. You are referring to a Homosexual on the same levelings as a pedophile - you Sir are unimaginably deluded and pious. I also gather that you are religious from your Blithe protective fist at Christianity. Religion adopted by a mind that finds science (the truth) incomprehensible, a crutch for the feeble minded. I personally think ''rot in a dustbin'' is very shrewd - your use of metaphysical conceit sums you up in a neat, worthy package.
If we take away the lovely embellishments of language and your insults against me, you haven't really answered my argument at all, aside from your statement that homosexuality and pedophilia aren't on the same level.
Tell me, where in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does it gives homosexuals the right to marry? And if we allow homosexuals to marry because "love is love" what is to stop a pedophile claiming the same right?
"Well, there are many non-bigoted churches out there happy to marry gay couples. Not every single religious person is a homophobe."
Yes, but that like saying not every single muslim is a terrorist. Just because some religious people are willing to conduct homoxual marriages doesn't mean the whole religion should be forced to.
People can and do get married by Elvis Preisley lookalikes in Las Vegas, so clearly the Church is not the only institution that can perform marriages- plus, there are registry offices that perform marriage services (at least here in the UK there are).
Plus, since when is being a good Christian about being anti-homosexuality? Jesus himself would spend time with lepers, and outcasts, and anyone who everyone else considered worthless or beneath them. Jesus opened his arms to EVERYONE, and it's not stated anywhere that he decided to hate gays.
The Churches are the only people who AREN'T involved in the marriage process. Marriage is a legal thing as well as a cultural one, and this repression actually and fiscally hurts people.
Of course other religions get married, my reasoning also applies for them. Judaism, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism also have the right to choose who they wish to marry, none of those religions allow homosexuality.
"The Churches are the only people who AREN'T involved in the marriage process. Marriage is a legal thing as well as a cultural one, and this repression actually and fiscally hurts people."
Gay people can get civil partnerships, why do they have to be allowed to marry as well. Why do they even need to get married in the first place? If they sin once they might as well sin again.
Actually Hinduism and early scriptures on Buddhism do not place any discernible restriction on homosexuality. In fact, Hindu mythic stories have portrayed homosexual experience as natural and joyful. I can't speak for Islam or Judaism because I have no knowledge of them, so I'll skip over them. But that's not the point I want to make.
The meaning of the pursuit of the marriage between homosexual couples is in the desire to be seen as a legal, justifiable entity with the same freedoms that we heterosexuals take for granted. Why should this be allowed? Well, why not? Why does it seem as though the sanctions of governmental regulation is influenced by Christianity? The concept of marriage long predates most religions, including Christianity. Actually, it was established as a means to restrict the promiscuity of the couple, or group, as polygamy existed when it was established as well.
The problem is that regulations that are established now were molded by, and cater to, Christians for the most part. It is not the government's job to act as a church; it acts to preserve itself and the rights of the governed. Why would it be beneficial to have a government that imbues "unequal" rights to law-abiding citizens? Just to cater to religiously-uptight citizens who don't even have a particular adherence to the religion in the first place?
You just specifically said that it's up to those people involved to decide whether or not they should be able to. If they don't agree with your bigotry, they don't have to--end of discussion.
There are lots of binding traditions you could call "marriage" and Christians were far from the first to invent these. It seems silly they would be allowed to ban others from it because it's their word (not their concept).
Also marriage is a lot more than a religious tradition nowadays; you can have many different churches preform a marriage, not all of them Christian, as you can the government through a courthouse. One acceptable option would to be to completely sever the link between church and state in this regard and stop giving financial benefits to married couples; then gays would only be denied something of religious significance.
Another viable option is for Christianity to change it's views, as it has done numerous times in the past, to allow gay marriage. Yet another alternative is for Christianity to allow the gays to form a splinter religion, as has been done numerous times in the past, and this similar and affiliated religion would be able to sanction gay marriage.
In conclusion: Christians didn't invent marriage, it's not their business to police it. If they want to police it, the state shouldn't compensate and reward them for their efforts. If they still want tax breaks and financial aid, they need to drag themselves out of the stone age yet again, or otherwise allow gay churches to preform their own gay marriages, if they really want nothing to do with it.
I did not say Christianity invented marraige, I merely said it was their tradition, meaning they adopted it. (I am aware that other religions conduct marraiges, but seeing as thie debate involves mainly British and Americans I've just used Christianity as an example everyone would be familiar with).
Why would someone want to be married in the first place unless the specifically follow that religion? Gay people can have civili partnerships why do the need to be allowed to marry as well.
Oftentimes it's one specific issue that causes some religious people to want to splinter off and make their own similar but different (on that one issue) religion. One needs only look at the many, many branches of Christianity to see that people have a lot of different opinions on proper Christian faith and behavior. I don't see why homosexuals shouldn't be able to do the same, and have rights that other splinter churches enjoy (there are LGBT Christian churches nearby that I know of, but they cant preform a legally binding gay marriage). We allow religious people to pick-and-choose the aspects of their faith that they want to follow and don't usually revoke privileges or rights for it. You can have just about every sin in the book on your hands and still be Christian, still have a Christian marriage, but these things don't always hold true if your sin is homosexuality. I get that homosexuality, like everything else, is an abominable sin in the Christian faith, but they don't allow or deny marriage rights based on how much you sin or what your sins are. If you're a gay Christian and you want to marry another gay Christian, why can't you have a Christian marriage?
I guess I've always seen the beliefs of the church and Christians as very mailable and ever-shifting; they alter their views so they can be accepted and supported by their host community. If the Church still opposed interracial marriage, for example, priests and Christians would be mocked and ridiculed for it. Yet at one time it was a valid and accepted position for them to hold. Allowing gay marriage is just the next grudgingly progressive step this backward religion is going to take; they're going to kick, scream, and really dig their heels in, no doubt, but Christianity has been fighting a losing battle since it was created, always giving ground to civil liberties at the last possible second, before they draw too much hatred upon themselves for their bigotry.
Does the bible not speak of marriages before Christ was born?
Homosexuality is not against Christianity, for homosexuality is not an ideology but a description of sexuality, however some forms of Christianity are against homosexuality;
Marriage is also a secular, governmental institution, and very few, if anyone is suggesting churchs be forced to do anything other than stop using their influence for violating basic principals of secularism. There are governmental privileged and rights granted with a marriage LICENCSE, and there is no secular basis to deny homosexuals these benefits from the government. There is no legitimate interest which the government has in doing such.
"Does the bible not speak of marriages before Christ was born?"
I merely stated Chrsitianity to begin with as it is the main religion of the countries of which most of the debaters here are from, if you look in later arguments I changed it to religion.
"Homosexuality is not against Christianity, for homosexuality is not an ideology but a description of sexuality, however some forms of Christianity are against homosexuality;"
The Bible clearly states that homosexuality is a sin, thus is you homosexual then you are against Christianity.
"Marriage is also a secular, governmental institution, and very few, if anyone is suggesting churchs be forced to do anything other than stop using their influence for violating basic principals of secularism. "
What is the point of marriage then if it is a secular, government institution?
"There are governmental privileged and rights granted with a marriage LICENCSE,"*
What are friends for? Not that kind of relationship. If I am attracted to a female then I can't help it. And I don't think friends are meant for that intimacy.
Same-sex isn't for marriage because people can't get over themselves. If people want to live together in love than no one else should be able to stop them. Regardless of color, sex, or any other factor that people can't control.
whilst god does not discriminate it says in the bible that man must not lie with man, this geeration seems to think that you are above the law of the bible and if this is so just look towards god and ask him 'am i allowed?' and the answer will be do as you will but ot for lust only for love
jacob
yet the systematic abuse of this freedom to sleep with whom and whoever you want for love was jesus lega cy and he said for give them father for they know not what they do and this was his last words as a man so do you really want to go behind gods back and show yourself as heathans he died for you once and when the second coming arrives he shall do it again if you caqn live with the shame for breaking of the covenants is your forty pieces of silver if your heart is breaking speak to jeasus if you have lost your faith speak to the lord but if you continue to be promiscuous without asking for forgiveness then you may have your money and laugh for the lords say it will not happen again
I CORINTHIANS CHAPTER 6 VERSE 9 AND 10 '''DO NOT BE MISLEAD .NEITHER FORNICATORS.NOR IDOLATERS,NOR ADULTERERS'' NOR MEN KEPT FOR UNNATURAL PURPOSE,NOR WHO LIE WITH MEN WILL IN INHERIT GODS KINGDOM..