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.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Should gay marriage be legal nationwide?
Considering I am an athiest and that I have two bisexual friends, I have never found an issue with homosexual marriage. Is there anything extremely bad about gay marriage I never heard about? And DON'T get started with anything that has to do with polygamy!
I don't think the government should be in the business of defining or regulating marriage anyway, but as long as they do, marriage between two consenting adults should be supported across the board.
Who is society or people with authority to judge who you should be with or not? I think you can't actually stop your feelings, I find it virtually impossible. Telling a gay person to be straight is like telling a dog not to walk on all fours
I would have to say yes to this and this is for many reasons. To start is that what is so bad about it? If the opposite sex can be able to do so then why not the same sex? There is no real reason why the shouldn't be able to do so, not going into religion and all that. There will be some countries that could have a problem with all of this and i cant see the reason why.
Why not? Aren't homosexuals humans just like heterosexuals? If they want to yell their love to each other in front of the word, why can't they? Love is strange. We all now that. And it doesn't come in the same shape all the time. Love is natural! If people want to declare their love to each other in marriage, who are we to say they can't?
I was raised in a household where we didn't judge others. Not on religion, not on skin, not on homes, and especially not on sexuality. Is it wrong for two human beings to be in love? Have we forgotten that it matters not who or what we marry, but as long as we love them with all of our heart and soul? Who cares in gays marry? It doesn't bother me one bit. Let them marry
I was raised in a household where we didn't judge others. Not on religion, not on skin, not on homes, and especially not on sexuality. Is it wrong for two human beings to be in love? Have we forgotten that it matters not who or what we marry, but as long as we love them with all of our heart and soul? Who cares in gays marry? It doesn't bother me one bit. Let them marry
It actually has some practical justifications (e.g. hospital visitation, joint tax returns, household separation, etc.), but the problem is that it is not always implemented to that end exclusively.
I agree with you, bust mostly I feel a separate title should be used for people related in a 'business' sense. Marriage should be a thing separate from monetary matters, if they really want to keep it sanctified. While all the business matters marriages does attend to could be blanked under a new term 'Civil Partnership' maybe?
I honestly do not care what they call it, so long as it functions appropriately and is uniform across all types of relationships. Civil union would be nice to underscore the separation of church and state, but again I am primarily concerned with function. A rose by any other name...
We shouldn't let fags get married. Marriage is between a man and woman. Its meant for women to do what the husband says. If we allowed gay marriage who would be in charge.
Not really, the law regarding homosexuality in the bible is specifically for the Old Testament. The new testament just mentions sexual immorality. That's your basic stuff such as prostitution, rape, non-marital sex, and stuff around that.
Gay marriage should not be legalize unless we decide that all weird groups of people can marry. If men want 20 wives then they should have the equal rights to do so. If adults want to marry consenting teens, they should have the right to do so. When you open pandora's box, anything goes.
When an entire state votes to not allow Gay marriage and then ONE Judge over rides their voice, THAT IS HORRENDOUS!
I said legally consenting teen, so that first point is invalid.
Umm no? Did you even read my response? It doesn't matter if yo're a legally consenting teen, the age is my argument. I don't think most teens are that wise and I'm sure some people agree which in turn makes that a possible problem. Age would be the problem for a lot of people too. Like ofif a 18 year old marries a 17 year old there is almost no problem at all. If a 30 year old marries a 17 year old some people may see problems. Even more problems come forward when the age of the teen is decreased. So, no my point is still valid.
I ask again what's wrong with marrying 20 people. Love or no love?
I gave you am answer and you just completely threw it away. There almost isn't any love anymore, just lust or something. It just desire. That's my answer. If there is no love then what is the purpose of marrying someone? And then if there is love then who do you love? All 20? I highly doubt.
Here's the thing. if a teen is of legal consenting age, the government that they live under has decided they are wise enough to make that decision, there for your point is invalid.
I asked what is wrong with marrying etc amount of people, you said there's less potential to love. I said what's wrong with it because since when is love a requirement for marriage? Look at all of the failed marriages in this country, or the marriages in other countries where love isn't even a deciding factor.
Here's the thing. if a teen is of legal consenting age, the government that they live under has decided they are wise enough to make that decision, there for your point is invalid.
You literally don't understand the post. You can't "invalidate" the point. People are different. If the age was reduced to 15 even then I wouldn't expect 15 year olds to be wise on average. Just because a sheet of paper says your wise doesn't make you wise. My point is still valid. Even then it wasn't really a point to begin with, it was just my opinion on the matter.
I asked what is wrong with marrying etc amount of people, you said there's less potential to love.
Potential? Don't think I said potential, and you're leaving some of my words out. I said there almost is no love. Just desire or lust. If there no love then why marry in the first place? If there is love who do you love? All 20? I highly doubt. That is what I said.
I said what's wrong with it because since when is love a requirement for marriage?
When is love a requirement for marriage? Marriage was created for two lovers. Not for personal gain. A sheet of paper and a ring can give you a marriage, but love and devotion to your partner is what I would call true marriage. I would define it by its original context.
Look at all of the failed marriages in this country, or the marriages in other countries where love isn't even a deciding factor.
Okay? Most happen because they aren't really compatible and they thought they were. I could easily say look at all the successful marriages in the US and in other countries. Now marriage has no official definition so I can't say you're wrong and I can't be right. It's just my opinion on the topic.
Your opinions are not valid on legal issues. Take for instance the drinking age. It's different all over the place, and for a time it was 18 here in the U.S. It was then upped to 21, but the people who would have been legally allowed to drink that year were allowed to drink, even though they were under the legal drinking age, while people who were old enough weren't allowed, because the drinking age wouldn't allow them. Now nothing magically changed allowing these people to be able to responsibly drink, they were just legally allowed to make that decision, that is all that matters.
For the second point, you're talking about love as a requirement to marry, so i ask where are all of your protest signs for people who marry for looks, or for money? Their is hardly ever any love involved in those instances, yet that is perfectly legal, because they are within the guidelines. So i ask, if love isn't a requirement then why not change the guidelines to allow groups, since they aren't breaking any requirements by being in lust, like so many couples before them have.
For your third point, you're devolving to opinions again, which is something that can't be logically argued, so I'll leave that aside.
Final point of yours, wraps up with the age old 'this is an opinion' message. I'll say in the future, save it. I don't want to argue opinions, because that can go on forever, I only want to argue cold hard fact, and results.
They are perfectly valid views. My same point can be placed in that example you just gave. All I said was that I don't think teenagers are wise enough. Works for both situations.
For the second point, you're talking about love as a requirement to marry
I'll just stop you here, these are my views on these topics. I see marriage for love. My religion sees marriage for love. It's how I was raised, if you don't accept that then we just dismiss this.
For your third point, you're devolving to opinions again, which is something that can't be logically argued, so I'll leave that aside.
Pretty sure I didn't, but okay.
Final point of yours, wraps up with the age old 'this is an opinion' message. I'll say in the future, save it. I don't want to argue opinions, because that can go on forever, I only want to argue cold hard fact, and results.
No, I won't "save it". You're on an site for debating. Opinions are often going to come up. Especially since the topic question is easily answered with opinion. So, before you try to dismiss opinions look at the debate title and think to you yourself. Does the question warrant opinions? I think so. So I won't participate.
By that reasoning, we should just get rid of marriage altogether. Straight people marrying in the first place was what opened up this can of worms to begin with.
P.S. Welcome to democracy, which is different from majoritarianism.
Shit. We better ban marriage altogether. Once we let men and women marry it is only a matter of time people! Its a slippery slope. WAKE UP!
When an entire state votes to not allow Gay marriage and then ONE Judge over rides their voice, THAT IS HORRENDOUS!
The mob should not deny the rights of an individual without reason even if it is the popular view. Sorry. This is the price the mob pays to be in a civilized country.
Yes, that is why a Judge should ban late term abortions for any reasons, against the will of the people. The selfish mob mentality that would abort Babies for sake of self is inhuman and worse than a lynch mob.
Adults can marry consenting teens, if the parents also give consent. (At least in the UK, it's 16 with parents consent and 18 without, 16 without also in Scotland)
Gay Marriage should not be legalized clearly because it will mess up genetics. Seriously, imagine you are telling someone that your father and father love each other.
I am seriously, everything is already good the way it is. Why change it? Why have two people of the same gender that cant reproduce?
no. because ultimately marriages result (mostly all or at least should) to give birth to a new generation, so that the family, the world keeps going on. and how are you planning to achieve this with gay marriages?
Marriages are not required to have children. Saying homosexuals should not get married for this reason would also leave out women who have passed menopause, people in accidents and so on.
Gay people getting married will not stop others from getting married or having children in our out of marriage.
Marriage can be about kids for YOU if you want but it isn't necessary for everyone else. Marriage is many things to many people, no one culture has a monopoly on the idea. There are many health benefits to marriage such as improved mental health for starters.
We aren't exactly in danger of going extinct because we failed to breed, and marriage is definitely not necessary for reproduction. Marriage is a man made institution that has been used for many different reasons by many different cultures. One of the most common modern usages of marriage is to stand as a symbol of love, not of fertility.