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.
What exactly is love? Do you have a pet? If your pet was in the "Vet" and you couldn't visit them, give them friendship and comfort them in there time of need, then would you do anything you can so you could? If two people love each other, then "The genitalia between"there"...legs shouldn't dictate with whom..."they" can spend the rest of there life..." with.
And I loathe stupidity. There is a logical reason to engage in homosexual behavior...it's natural. It doesn't detrimentally affect society, and it does not infringe on another's right to self-determination. Logic would dictate laws that preventing same sex couples from marriage while allowing heterosexual couples to marry is fundamentally unfair and antiquated.
I loathe people who think that their version of logic is the proper one - but enough of these insults.
There is one logical reason to engage in intercourse. Procreation. Homosexuality cannot result in impregnation and thus there is no logical reason to engage in homosexual behavior.
"Because we can..." is not a logical answer. We can do a great many things, but that doesn't mean that there is a logical reason to do so.
Obviously there is a logical reason for it occur, if it occurs naturally through nature. There is no logical reason to paint pictures, there is no logical reason to dance, there is no logical reason to enjoy sex. We do these things, because it gives us pleasure. Pleasure is natural and logical. You know what else is pleasurable and natural? Human rights. You know what is logical and rational for a society to do, to uphold human rights. You argument is myopic tunnel vision.
There is no logical reason to pain pictures - in a way, there is. It shows future generations what the world looks (or rather, looked) like, primarily before the advent of the camera.
Hedonism is not logical. Pleasure is illogical. Enjoyment is illogical.
There is no logical reason to pain pictures - in a way, there is. It shows future generations what the world looks (or rather, looked) like, primarily before the advent of the camera.
Yet you dodge "dancing."
Pleasure is illogical. Enjoyment is illogical.
Then happiness, anger, sadness, etc... are all illogical as well. It would be logical for someone to do something that is pleasurable become it makes them happy. If you think happniess is "illogical," then I would have to question your sanity. The only people I'm aware of that find emotions "illogical" are psychopaths.
How are human rights pleasurable?
Hmmm...talk to a Holocaust survivor or a minority during the 1960s. They might be able to give you a reason why having human rights is pleasurable.
Then I pity you. Emotions are not illogical to those that have them, because they're the result of chemical reactions in the brain. Rights are natural. Your Hobbesian approach to rights quickly leads to chaos and warfare. Laws exist to promote peace and order. Human rights exist to promote peace and order, because as soon as natural human rights are denied people by your standards become "illogically unhappy" and then chaos ensues.
Rights are a human construct, and thus are unnatural.
Rousseau disagrees. Hobbes and Rousseau had this debate roughly 400 years ago. Rousseau's view prevailed. Rights flow from the natural right that everyone has a right to dictate their own destiny. Hence, they're not a human construct.
Hobbes? Was he the writer of Leviathon?
Yes.
Was the chaos and warfare of the middle ages caused by a lack of human rights? Or rather by overbearing monarchs?
Both. Overbearing monarchs infringed on human rights.
How does homosexuality promote peace and order? Greece, Rome - all the homosexual 'hotspots' throughout history have fallen.
Greece and Rome did not fall due to homosexuality. The rights of homosexuals to get married promotes peace and order, because it will please them thereby preventing civil unrest. Granting them this right does not infringe on the rights of others and is not a threat to public safety.
Rousseau disagrees. Hobbes and Rousseau had this debate roughly 400 years ago. Rousseau's view prevailed. Rights flow from the natural right that everyone has a right to dictate their own destiny. Hence, they're not a human construct.
I, then, must agree with Hobbes.
Yes.
I bought Leviathon awhile ago. Now I wish to read it. Tell me, in what writing came the debate betwixt Rousseau and Hobbes?
Both. Overbearing monarchs infringed on human rights.
Greece and Rome did not fall due to homosexuality. The rights of homosexuals to get married promotes peace and order, because it will please them thereby preventing civil unrest. Granting them this right does not infringe on the rights of others and is not a threat to public safety.
Homosexuality leads to diseases, as do other sexual perversions.
Homosexuality leads to diseases, as do other sexual perversions.
As does "straight" sex or any other type of sexual you deem to be normal. Condoms prevent the spread of disease. STDs are just as prevalent amongst heterosexuals. You believe laws should be grounded in logic? OK...it's not logical to arbitrarily deny rights that you confer upon others.
From a functonal perspective, sex is designed for procreation to ensure the survival of a species. However, in contemporary society, sex is also a form of pleasure. A human being's mind is very complex capable of everything from philosophical thought to emotional depth beyond that of mere animals. Pleasure/happiness helps keep us sane. The same way fear helps keep people alive. Regardless whether your Vulcanian logic find emotions to be "illogical," the point is they exist. Their presence is not accidental. The logic is we should pass laws that make society happy while not infringing on the rights of others. Not create laws that would make sense in a world that doesn't exist: an emotionless species with a population problem. However, the issue isn't about legalizing gay sex. The issue is gay marriage.Marriage on the other hand is a legal contract between two people asking society to recognize them as a family unit conferred with certain rights (health administrative proxies, administration of estates, etc...) How consenting adults choose to have sex should have nothing to do with denying them rights. Furthermore, a law prohibiting gay marriage isn't grounded in logic rather religious dogma. Archaic laws grounded in religious dogma should not be dictating rights in a secular society.
Only 27% of teenage females who engage in coitus do so with their partner wearing a condom.
My ultimate point here is that claiming Homosexuality results in the spread of disease is irrelevant to the argument because so does heterosexuality when done without protection.
Homosexual behaviour occurs in nature, thus by definition it is natural. It is not hard to see how it would be logical and beneficial for our ancestors to have a few adults in a family group abstain from having children and instead devote time and resources to their relatives' children. Homosexuality would supply childless adults without requiring those adults to ignore their sex drives and need for romantic companionship, which is an unlikely expectation. Today, the female relatives of gay men have more children, and (barring adoption, which evolution did not take into account) with no children of his own, the gay man has more time and resources to devote to them.
Do you think everything illogical should be made illegal? Does this include any and all marriages that cannot or are not intended to result in children? Does that include sex with the use of contraceptives, among anyone, married or not? What is logical in a human's life, besides day to day survival and the production of offspring?
At this point it seems you are being obstinate and wilfully obtuse.
Prove that homosexuality is natural.
Define natural. Regardless, Human beings are not and should not be governed by what is deemed natural.
It shows future generations what the world looks (or rather, looked) like, primarily before the advent of the camera.
It is impossible for that to be the reason for paintings before the camera, as the artists would not have known what a camera is or that it would ever be created.
Hedonism is not logical.
Why not? Pleasure is entirely logical. Conversely, a life without pleasure is completely illogical. Sex is pleasurable, and a life without that fails to conform to the primary compulsion of life - procreation. Regardless, humans are not logical creatures. We have emotions, none of which serve any logical purpose. Our society makes sex a taboo, which is illogical considering our natural urge to mate.
How are 'human rights' pleasurable?
This is implied by the displeasure of having none.
Humans are one of the only species to engage in sex for pleasure, as well as reproduction. And on top of this, we can reproduce without sex, which many couples resort to because they can't bear children. Therefore, marriage is not only for people intending to have children.
There is one logical reason to engage in intercourse. Procreation. Homosexuality cannot result in impregnation and thus there is no logical reason to engage in homosexual behavior.
Good. You elucidated your premise for your argument. Now for the bad news: your premise is arbitrary and of no more objective value to the universe than selecting pleasure, greed, or love.
You should skip the logical pretence and simply state that you think procreation is important, because you have no logic backing you.
Oh, and bonus: gay people will be able to procreate in a few decades, using technology that converts skin cells into gametes.
I have already explained to you that is it unsafe sex practices, not homosexuality itself, that causes this, and I used factual evidence from Africa to back it up. Why are you still using this argument?
and does sex not breed corruption in all forms, sex can breed jealousy and lust, which can lead to anger. and if emotion is overrated why are you here? if you think these thing illogical, then is it not illogical for you to be here trying to prove a flawed point? could you not be doing something more constructive? the logical path is not always the right one
Procreation is not the reason most people have sex most of the time, very rarely is it so. What is the logical reason when heterosexual couples use condoms?
Emotion and Logic are not distinct. Logic builds off of Emotion, our reasoning is basically preemptively applied Emotional evaluation. For example, as a young child we touch the red coils of a electric stove; we associate that experience with the emotional response and though our reasoning when we see something glowing we think that its likely hot by inductive generalization. With out emotion we would have nothing stopping us from touching the next red glowing thing we see and our hands would be very burnt. Emotionally, we don't like pain.
One of my oldest friends is gay; if he one day wants the legal rights granted by marriage; he should be able to have them even if the other consenting adult in the contract is male. Personally I wouldn't mind marriage being abolished, perhaps replaced with a contract that legally incorporates someone into your family, without the religious and sexual undertones of marriage. Marriage IS NOT a religious thing, its a legal thing; ifs its religious then government needs to stop recognizing marriage and view it as a private religious practice.
What is the logical reason when heterosexual couples use condoms?
It is illogical to use condoms.
With out emotion we would have nothing stopping us from touching the next red glowing thing we see and our hands would be very burnt. Emotionally, we don't like pain.
Is it not logical to avoid physical injury?
Marriage IS NOT a religious thing
Prove it.
Does marriage have a religious origin?
ifs its religious then government needs to stop recognizing marriage and view it as a private religious practice.
Marriage has become to common an aspect of society to 'forget about' it.
Hello, Terminator. The issue isn't about sex. It's about whether certain people should be allowed to marry. I've been reading some of your posts and it doesn't seem to be the case that you actually have a reason as to why homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry.
Prove it.
It's simple. You can get married without the religious ritual. But you can't get married without a state license. The ritual has historically acted as a rite of passage, but not the actual thing that makes you "married".
Does marriage have a religious origin?
No. Marriage has always been a state institution, always requiring the recognition of the state regardless of what ritual religious or secular is attached to it.
No. Marriage has always been a state institution, always requiring the recognition of the state regardless of what ritual religious or secular is attached to it.
I don't have an information to back me up here, but I find this statement highly dubious. For one thing, in much of recent history (up until the last century or so) church and state have been identical in many countries. Certainly now marriage must require the recognition of the state, but you would really have to show me some info to prove it's always been that way. Anytime you use the word "always" you had better have some damned good data to back you up.
I don't have an information to back me up here, but I find this statement highly dubious.
Do you know what they say about the male intuition? Neither do I. Nor do I know who "they" constitutes. But people have been getting married since before there were states - as the definition and requirements have changed over time - and before there were religions. Marriage as we describe it now is a civil contract and not a religious one. I'm right, somehow, either way.
its logical. I can make one concerning homosexuality to.
Emotion gives us the premise: "avoid injury" It gives us the ability to reason the following:
1. Something causes injury(given by observation)
2. avoid injury(given by emotional evaluation, pain tells us when we are injured; usually)
--------------------
3. Avoid that something.
with out emotion, we would only have: something causes injury, a statement, and no reasoning would be possible concerning if we should avoid it. We do not have sex to procreate, we have sex because emotion tells us its desirable.
Refer to mahollinder's post to see how Marriage is not a religious thing, no reason to reinvent the wheel.
Marriage has become too common an aspect of society to "forget about" it, government could just stop recognizing it as a legal contract. Society would still have it, but with out what makes it legally worth while. Its only value would be the religious and social value it holds, which isn't much religiously and the social value is a sham for a lot of people as well(50% divorce rate).
Logic is just a way of systematizing or formalizing thought. You're somewhat abusing the term when you keep asserting that something isn't logical because it disagrees with your concept of what is right and/or appropriate.
Your desire for sex is simply instinctual need to procreate.
Not entirely true. In primates and monkeys, and some cetacea, sex is also used for mere pleasure, increasing the closeness of bonds and attaining resources or favors (I mean prostitution).
You're somewhat abusing the term when you keep asserting that something isn't logical because it disagrees with your concept of what is right and/or appropriate.
I base my logic on Roddenberry's logic - or, rather Vulcanian logic.
in primates and some cetacea, sex is also used for mere pleasure, increasing the closeness of bonds and attaining resources or favors (I mean prostitution).
I read awhile back about a type of crab that engages in coitus for after a male defends a female.
P.S. I've always disliked the term 'sex'. Why is it that I am the only one who says 'coitus' in everyday conversation?
My desire for sex, whether its an instinctual need to procreate or not, primarily manifests itself emotionally. Its a statement, not a logical argument.
I can put them in standard form if you'll like. I just gave you a logical argument on why you should use condoms. I can do it for homosexuality.
1. A person should do what they enjoy, so long as it doesn't conflict with other people's justified rights.
2. A person would enjoy having sex with an available adult member of the same sex.
Is this an emotional response or a logical response? Laws ought to be based on logic, and there is no logical reason to engage in homosexual behavior.
Laws aren't based on logic. They are based on political compromise and/or majority opinion.
Further, moral values are not logically derived. There is no objective frame of reference to set as an axiom to base objective, logical morality upon. Therefore your statement about homosexual behaviour being illogical is erroneous.
Of course you did. You created a moral conclusion "sex ought to only be for procreation, and marriage should only foster this" and built logic around it.
I did not use a moral argument. I used an argument based on the purpose of intercourse.
The purpose of sex is only one of many subjective criteria with which you can build an argument. Addition criteria are pleasure, social bonding, equality, etc. People choose from these and then make a position to defend.
Of course you did. You created a moral conclusion "sex ought to only be for procreation, and marriage should only foster this" and built logic around it.
It was neither an opinion nor a supposition. It is not what sex 'ought' to be, but rather what it is.
Sex is an activity performed for the purpose of procreating the species.
Sex is an activity performed for pleasure.
Sex is an activity performed for social bonding.
Sex is an activity used to manipulate and display power over another.
Sex is an activity used for procreation.
Sex is an activity that releases tensions.
This is a non-comprehensive list of what sex is.
Marriage is a social contract.
Marriage is a means of supporting a family.
Marriage is a means of establishing or supporting a dynasty.
Marriage is the acquisition of property (the female).
Marriage is the dividing of resources and income.
Marriage is hoped to be a lifelong commitment.
Amongst other things.
Your choice of which of these premises to select, and base a "logical" conclusion upon is subjective. Your conclusion is erroneous anyway because marriage isn't only about procreation, and in fact only happenstance to procreation in a number of cases since procreation will occur out of wedlock.
However, for laws to be based on logic, there has to be an immense consideration of the emotional views, in order not just for the law to be passed, but also to be accepted and upheld by society.
yes it should be. Nobody has the right to judge anybody elses decision of who they want to be with. thats between them that's their business. who are gay people hurting? how are they hurting anyone?
People should be allowed to spend their life with whoever they want, and whoever they desire. They could be attracted to the same gender, but they have the right to spend their life with whoever they want.
There is nothing wrong with two consenting adults having more rights to each other and legally incorporating each other into their families. Denying them this right is only done out of bigotry and fear.
Some don't like it because they think the divorce rate will go higher. How is that bad? Its main effect might be on children, which usually isn't that bad. Many of my friends do not have nuclear families, and they are perfectly healthy functioning members of society. Marriage should be like contracts between employers and employees: well defined and voluntary.
Some don't like it because of their (interpretation of their) religion. In short these people do not believe in the separation of church and state, and are nothing less then fear ridden, insecure little tyrants. I can go into the details of their psychology and position, but its not flattering at all. Laws should be backed by secular and logical reasoning with the goal of increasing the well being of society. Marriage improves "the lot in life" of many people, for some it doesn't but they find it worth the try. Allowing gay marriage means that more people will find marriage an improvement to their lives. Marriage, unless combined with other causes, doesn't cause any considerable physical, financial, etc harm to others. Its a benefit to society with out Loss to society. There is no reasonable reason to not allow it.
yes...............................people should mind their own business!!!!! obviously gays are not going away........and i think unless you live in bum fuck Alabama that homosexuality is something a person is born with and the gays are not gonna rub gay on you and make all your kids gay.
Gay marriages should be allowable because gay people have all the rights to love each other as much as the others do and they should be able to express their love by getting married. They shouldn't be banned by society just because their love is wrong and people should have open minds to it because its an emotion that they cannot control.
Marriage is not something you have to enter into just because you are in love. However, marriage is an act of love. It is supposed to mean that "I am proud to be seen with you", "I trust you with my belongings" and "I love you so bloody much that I don't want to share you with anyone else". Once again, I state that you don't have to be married to feel like this or be known to be like this, but a ring on the finger USED to keep other rivals away.
So why can't homosexuals marry? If heterosexuals can, why not they? Oh, if we are using the Bible as an excuse, I would like to say that we don't stone adulterers anymore and God loves us NO MATTER WHAT. He wants us to be happy.
By the way, I like gay people better. They can see things as they are and as what they can be. Close minded morons can't.
Where is discrimination not allowed? People are legally discriminated against all the time. Where is marriage a right? This is a very slippery slope. If the majority can be circumvented anytime someone says it's the "right" thing to do, we are not living in a democracy, we are living in a dictatorship.
We live in a constitutional govt where the constitution shows what the majority can and cannot do and what is legally "right". Show me in the constitution where marriage is a right (or more appropriately, where we have the right to marry whomever we want) and I will concede your argument.
"Q134. "Is there anything in the Constitution, Bill Of Rights or any Amendment that adds to discrimination due to race, color, or creed? I thought that 'Sexual Preference' was added, but I am told that I am wrong."
A. There is nothing anywhere in the Constitution that specifically bans discrimination based on sexual preference. There is not even a direct ban on discrimination based on race, color, or creed. What we do have are provisions that are often interpreted that way. The 15th and 19th Amendments, which ensured that blacks and women could vote, hint at a policy of non-discrimination, but they are actually quite specific. They only involve suffrage and nothing else. However, the due process clause of the 14th Amendment has been interpreted to mean that discrimination based on traits such as race are a violation of due process and not constitutional (when done by the government or an agent of the government). It is a complex issue. Again, a ban on discrimination based on sexual preference is not a part of the Constitution, but has been extended, to some degree, based on the 14th Amendment by the courts. The subject is far from a closed one at this time."
In fact I´m socked. I searched everywhere and it seems the USA doesn´t have any non-descrimination laws :O
I guess you´re right but this is wrong. I live in Portugal and even we have laws regarding this matter. Well I guess leggally speaking you´re right :O
No one has the right to tell others who they can and can not fall in love with. The argument that it is not natural is completely false as well, homosexuality was prevalent in ancient Rome, Greece and China, amongst others, and has been observed in animals from mammals to fish to insects. Should millions of people around the world be denied a rewarding and joyous part of life so that a few bigots feel superior?
No one is telling anyone who they can love, we're talking about who they can marry, something very different. Unfortunately the burden of proof is not on the so-called "bigots" you mention (who just believe something different than you. If you believe everyone who believes different than you is a bigot, you might be surprised to discover that you have become one as well). Marriage is only currently legal between a man and a woman. There is no constitutionally guaranteed right that gives anyone otherwise. So in order to change it, you must pass a law democratically. If you can't do that you are free to try and persuade people why they should change their minds, but the burden of proof is on you.
I think that gay marriages should be allowed, so what if its a man and a man or a woman and a woman, we're all human and should be treated equally and have equal rights. If they are choosing to get married and let people know about it, then good for them, because it shows that they are who they are and they are proud of who they are. As long as they love eachother and as long as they are human who has the right to say that they cant get married.
You can't control who you fall in love with! And besides, there is nothing wrong with falling in love with someone of your same sex! Why should your x chromosomes and your y chromosomes dictate marriage?
i think there should be same sex marriages allowed because its a free country and no one cans top you from loving the same sex.Were americans of the united stated were free people so why cant people just support same sex marriages.its not hurting any one and why does religion have to be put into this situation!.it just deosnt make sense it is not a sin even jesus worshippers sin also!.
Just don't call it marriage and the hatred is over! THis forum is full of religion haters is not marriage a religious concept? So let the religious people have it and call it something else. This is a liberal arguement so it makes no sense to me that you want the term marriage anyway, you hate everything that leans towards religion so why not hate the word 'marriage'? Just stay with your 'legal union' or whatever it's called and everyone is happy.
I'm not very well-researched on the topic, so I'm sure someone else could answer this better than I can, but I do know that there are certain things that married couples can do more easily than non-married couples. Things like getting joint insurance and becoming next of kin and stuff like that. I mean, if marriage didn't actually help couples do anything new with each other, in a legal sense, then why would most of us get married anyway? Of course I pose this question in a legal sense.
Homosexuals hurt the idea of family morales, what if they were to adopt a kid, and all of his/her friends ask why they have 2dads, or 2 moms. The kids dont know, and honestly, so do I. I dont really care if there are gay people and they do there freaky stuff in their private life, but getting married is too much. And i agree with soccerstud, there are two sexes on this planet for a reason, if god wanted us to be gay then he would have only created one sex. Plus, you need 2 different sexes to make a normal family work, you need breast milk, you need sperm cells, you need egg cell, you need both the female and the male to function as a normal family, and in my opinion, gay married couples are not a normall functioning family.
They hurt your idea of family morals. Not everyone's.
what if they were to adopt a kid, and all of his/her friends ask why they have 2dads, or 2 moms.
What is wrong with a capable couple giving an unwanted child a home, and their friends being curious about it?
The kids dont know, and honestly, so do I.
So you don't understand gay marriage thus it should be illegal? I don't understand religious fanaticism, but I'm not about to start a campaign to outlaw it.
And i agree with soccerstud, there are two sexes on this planet for a reason, if god wanted us to be gay then he would have only created one sex.
If God didn't plan for gays to exist, they wouldn't exist. Also, plenty of people don't really care what you think God wants or doesn't want, and you have realize not everyone is a Christian or chooses to follow all Christian ideals. By no means should a purely religious restriction ever be legalized.
Plus, you need 2 different sexes to make a normal family work, you need breast milk, you need sperm cells, you need egg cell, you need both the female and the male to function as a normal family, and in my opinion, gay married couples are not a normall functioning family.
This logic would make it illegal to be: an infertile married couple, a single parent, a married couple that adopted children, an elderly ,married couple, a married couple that is childfree by choice, or any other situation where a family consists of something other than a woman legally wed to a man and raising his kids.
Our role in society is no longer dictated by how or if we make babies. We're smarter than that now.
"...there are two sexes on this planet for a reason, if god wanted us to be gay then he would have only created one sex."
What if this entire world wasn't even planned by God? If you believe that God planned for there to be sexual reproduction and for there to be male and female humans, then I suppose you believe that we were intelligently designed, since God has such a direct impact in the world. Well, if he designed us, then why do our esophagus and trachea intersect, which creates a very dangerous choking hazard? And why do our eyes have blind spots where the optic nerve goes into the eye? Couldn't God have designed our bodies to be a little more perfect? I'm not denying God's existence. I'm merely stating that this world wasn't directly created by God like so many people believe. And because of this, there are certain things, like homosexuality, that exist even though they go against religious teachings.
Many studies have proved that parents sexuality has no effects on the child's sexuality. and your "family morals" are already in danger with a 50% Divorce rate. Don't blame it on the gays Just because the rest of America is so morally indecent. And if "God" (I'm atheist, and I even spelled your God's name right with a capital "G") designed us to have different sexes, than why is anal sex one of the largest forms of sex in America between hetero-sexuals in america? i doubt ALL of those people are atheist, liberals, or Democrats.
Sorry, the rest of the population is not here to conform to your sensitivity. You don't get to decide what kind of people you don't want to see, and then tell them to make themselves invisible.
Marriage is a state-sponsored institution that gives some financial incentive for couples to be married because stable, 2 parent families raising children create a stable society. While it is obviously clear that many families do not fulfill this requirement, no homosexual couple can produce a child on their own. So maybe only 40% of hetro couples fulfill their obligation of being a good home and raising children there (I'm making this number up, but you get the idea), 0% of homosexual couples have children.
Maybe the financial incentives aren't worth it at all, in which case lets get the govt out of the marriage business (my own opinion), but there seems to be no incentive to invest in homosexual marriage. This is why I vote against it, but as I've always said, if a voting majority gives gays marriage, ok. It's really not an enormous deal.
Equality is not about what incentives the government or anybody else has to allow certain demographics a right or privilege. It is not about what return investment you might see from allowing gays to marry; it is about recognizing that people who are not breaking the law or infringing on others' rights are being unfairly denied the privilege and benefits of marriage...almost always based on a religious or bigoted reasoning.
The possibility of making babies is not the sole goal or prerequisite of marriage anymore, but if it were, gays should still be allowed to be married under this logic. Homosexual couples very frequently do raise children, either via adoption, surrogate birth, IVF, or from a previous relationship.
but a divorced, widowed, or adopted family is not as strong as a traditional home. This is just the way it is, however unfair. Children from these families are more likely to struggle.
Unfortunately, the govt job isn't to make sure everyone is treated fairly. This would be an impossible and expensive task (this is where we probably will disagree if you don't believe in very limited constitutional govt, which very few people believe in anymore). Besides, right now marriage IS equal: everyone can marry a member of the opposite sex. There is no inequality here. If we want to give people the right to marry members of the same sex, then let's do it, but this is, in fact, a change.
Before you call bigot, I am, in fact, not very religious and literally DON'T CARE if gays marry. It doesn't affect my life at all. I have two friends, a gay couple, who would make a perfect marriage. I just think people need to step away from their high emotions and look at this issue from the larger perspective. Also, everyone has a right to their own opinion and religion isn't bigotry. Even though I don't agree, if you don't want to vote for gay marriage because it's against your religion, congratulations, you have that right. In fact, this right actually IS a right, whereas marriage is nowhere in the constitution and not guaranteed to anyone. Don't like it? Change it! That is your right!
I would say raising children in such a fashion that we have a stable society has more to do with family finance, along with guidance and attention a child receives then whether or not the child is part of a nuclear family.
If your raised by one parent, and they bring home 80,000 a year by working just 4 hours a day(lets say their good with stocks), then lets say this person spends considerable time with their children; maybe he/she home schools them or something. That person would still be providing a good home, because the material, emotional and developmental needs of their children would be meet. If later this person gets into a good relationship, either with a member of the same sex or not; then the child needs would be even better supplied; and lets say this couple then wants to make it a triple and bring in a third person; even better for the kid right? This benefit continues for awhile, but eventually the needs of the group would overcome the means of supply; which means the group would become splintered(but still connected) and function more like a tribe then a family. Even that wouldn't be bad for the kid though, "it takes a village to raise a child".
Some homosexual couples adopt. gay marriage would allow for people to pool resources together better because of the financial incentives, meaning more stable families being more capable of adopting which would lessen the burden on foster care. There are many incentives to invest in homosexual marriage, i haven't came close to touching all of them here.
so since the BIBLE says it is not allowed then our Government shouldn't allow it? so what happened to the separation of church and state? the government is not supposed to support a particular religious view and therefore, to ban gay marriage because the BIBLE says it is not allowed, is a direct violation of the constitution.
I wonder why this website is called "Create Debate" when the proper elements of debate are utterly ignored! Why is everyone spitting incoherent insults in the direction of the opponent? If you baldly insult somebody, how do expect them to respond to you? With moderation and respect? Then the response is a discussion about the discussion, not about the original topic.
This depends on what you call marriage. If you're talking marriage in the religious sense, then no. No one should ever have the right to force a religious institution to allow something that they don't believe in. If you're talking about marriage in terms of like...a civil union, then go for it. Hell, you can even have a ceremony if you want. For now, I'll assume this is talking about marriage in a religious sense and I'll say no.
No, we have way too many couples getting divorced without having to add gays into the mix. The courts are swamped. In fact, I am more inclined to outlaw marriage all together ;)
I'm all for replacing marriage with a different contract that likewise incorporates someone into your family, just with out the religious and sexual undertones.
Whats wrong with people getting divorces? Especially if their gays because the only kids they can have are adopted ones. Most people won't decide and won't be allowed to adopt unless their in a stable situation. Gay divorce has Little Effect on children, and well...what other effect does it have besides two guys/girls don't have the same rights to each other which they used to. Its a contract, people should be able to enter and leave it.
I'm all for replacing marriage with a different contract that likewise incorporates someone into your family, just with out the religious and sexual undertones.
We already have that. It's called marriage. It's not a religious or sexual issue. It's a state issue in recognizing the merging of two families. The religious ritual is a superfluous (but meaningful to some) practice. It actually has no bearing whatsoever on the actual legitimacy of the marriage. And honestly, I don't see what sex has to do with marriage. If it was relevant at all, we'd stop impotent or infertile people from marrying. But we don't. It's only relevant when all these closeted homosexuals struggle against their sexuality and try to fight the very things they're doing in secret.
Why does everybody think marriage is fundamentally about love? This may seem a strange question, as you need to love your spouse, but what I mean is that the PURPOSE of marriage is not love. Culturally, marriage has meant all kinds of things--transfer of property, alliances between families, legitimization, survival, lust, pregnancy, fathers with shotguns, green cards, etc. It is a privilege to be able to choose the person you will marry, indeed--for marriage to be voluntary, if you're a woman--but the "that I will spend the rest of my life with" bit is much more to the point.
In the Abramic religions, marriage is primarily a commitment before (and to) God for a man and woman to unite as one and obtain God's blessing that legitimizes their marital (sexual) relationship. Marriage, and in fact the figures of the bride and groom are deeply significant in Christianity, as they represent Christ (the bridegroom) and his people, (the Bride) and the Wedding Supper after Christ's Second Coming.
This is the crux of my problem with gay marriage. Although we are talking about civil marriage under no denomination, that does not alter the fact that, to me, bestowing the name of marriage upon people of the same sex is essentially profanity.
Ultimately, same sex marriage will probably become more accepted--as a lot of things have. But I will continue to vote against it, if only because I feel it would be irreverent not to. My friend and I think that resistance to gay marriage for many people is really just an unwillingness to cross a line that indicates "respect for marriage." Thinking, I suppose, of a time when the secular wasn't so thoroughly stripped of anything Godlike, and we remembered he was listening.
Well the fact that it's wrong to be gay in the first place...
Why?
The fact that marriage is a religious ceremony..
Definitions of marriage
A: the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
B.a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage.
2.
the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: a happy marriage.
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.
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.
6.
a formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger.
7.
a blending or matching of different elements or components: The new lipstick is a beautiful marriage of fragrance and texture.
...why would you bring something so immoral and irreligious into the picture?
What exactly is immoral and irreligious about Homosexuality?
You can call them butt-buddies, scissor-partners, bumchums etc. etc. but don't call them a married couple.
Can I, thanks. I will reference you when I need to be a bigot.
The dictionary isn't always right. The dictionary is written by a bunch of people that give the definition of words as they see it. You go to a different country and several words have different meanings. Go to a country with morals and you'll see that marriage is between man and wife and that it is a religious ceremony. However in this new day and age (i agree) it doesn't have to be purely religious. But irregardless it is between a man and wife.
You cannot have a man and man or woman and woman or transexual and transexual or brother and sister or brother and father or brother and mother or sister and father or sister and mother or sister and sister or brother and brother or paedophile and young person or dead body and necrophile or a dog and a bestiality person.
You see what I'm getting at?
What exactly is immoral and irreligious about Homosexuality?.
Lol you being serious?
Can I, thanks. I will reference you when I need to be a bigot.
Blah blah blah anybody that isn't accepting of all types of peoples is a bigot. Have fun advocating paedophilia.
I'm not going to bother claling you a sick fuck cause I think all of you guys know you are...
I need to come up with a new accurate word to describe you queers.
The dictionary isn't always right. The dictionary is written by a bunch of people that give the definition of words as they see it
And religious scripture is written by God, right?
Go to a country with morals and you'll see that marriage is between man and wife and that it is a religious ceremony.
I feel your idea of morality is twisted, please name a country with morals or one without for that fact.
You cannot have a man and man or woman and woman or transexual and transexual
Why exactly can you not have these?
or brother and sister or brother and father or brother and mother or sister and father or sister and mother or sister and sister or brother and brother
By law siblings can not marry each other, this not the same as Homosexuality, incestuous behavior can create seriously deficient children therefore there is still a victim. Also there is not many siblings or parents of children wanting to marry each other, I am sure that there is very little people actually attracted to their siblings or parents, and should bare no mention in a debate on the right of two consenting adults to spend their lives together. Plus this is not the subject being debated.
or pedophile and young person or dead body and necrophile or a dog and a bestiality person.
Again victims involved so immoral.
Lol you being serious?
Was it not you that was harping on about the fact that Christianity and Islam are the only religions discussed/ considered in these debates, in an argument with me recently.
Buddism is not against homosexuality, Neither is Hinduism Shinto does not outline any problems with it. And as for immoral it is only in the eyes of those too consumed in their own shit to ever empathize with another human.
Blah blah blah anybody that isn't accepting of all types of peoples is a bigot. Have fun advocating paedophilia.
The term bigot is ambiguous it can also mean one that is strongly partial to ones own group, etc, etc. Why would I advocate paedophillia, it wrong and immoral, Now, empathizing with a pedophile is something I could do, something I see from your post you will never do or be able to do.
I'm not going to bother claling you a sick fuck cause I think all of you guys know you are...
I need to come up with a new accurate word to describe you queers.
Ohhhh, touchy, your name calling is sooooooooooo hurtful I think I might cry.
Explain to me why you brand me a queer? or a sick fuck?
This is where it might hurt your head
My head was OK, but thanks for the warning, your logical deduction is unique to say the least.
So you're willing to discriminate against incest but not against homosexuality?
Did I say that?
Who's the bigot now?
I did not call you a bigot, but I am sure that you are.
So if there is not victim it's moral? Are you braindead
Name me something that is immoral that has no victim?
Lmao since when
Uhm, see link
And homosexuality isn't? BIGOT ALERT PAEDOPHOBE ALERT!
NO it isn't. homosexuality is not wrong or immoral and views like yours will keep the world in the lingering dark ages for some time to come, as for your petulant name calling I will ask you this, are you suggesting that I am afraid of children? Besides the fact that I am not, I don't see its bearing on the debate.
Do me a favor and respond to my posts, instead of quote mining like an ignorant fool.
Kind of bullshit. Ever watched Scrottie Mcboogerballs? South Park where it shows how people read into things that aren't there?
Hinduism is a tolerant religion. If things were like they should be or like the old days then I'm sure homosexuality could be tolerated. But things are not. Gays are constantly in your face sticking their sins into your face. Justifying their sins. Making others accept their sins. Legalising their sins. Trying to make gay marriage and then legalise it etc.
If there wasn't any of that bullshit... with men sitting on each others laps in public etc. I don't think I'd say a word and let them be. Instead they're trying to get me and other people to allow them into our daily lives. Fuck that. Action = reaction. I'm not going tolerant on that.
Gays are constantly in your face sticking their sins into your face. Justifying their sins. Making others accept their sins. Legalizing their sins. Trying to make gay marriage and then legalise it etc.
Are they? I don't find that at all. Has a gay stuck his sin in your face? oh how telling.
If there wasn't any of that bullshit... with men sitting on each others laps in public etc. I don't think I'd say a word and let them be. Instead they're trying to get me and other people to allow them into our daily lives.
So because they do things that you don't like and they are not hurting you or anyone at all, you feel obligated to label them and protest against their rights to be happy. "Me thinks the lady does protest too much" if you know what I mean, their is a bit too much frequency in your protest when talking about homosexuals, which would lead to the inference that you are a closet homosexual. Anything you would like to confess? I think you would feel much better for it.
Lmao wut????
Peodophobe, fear of children or dolls, genius.
Anyway cockmuncher...
.....you're gay.
That is news to me, I am sure my wife will be upset when she hears it. How should I tell her? I am sure you have prepared your coming out speech, any tips? You can label me all you want, it only makes you more of a bigot.
The link you posted?
Kind of bullshit. Ever watched Scrottie Mcboogerballs? South Park where it shows how people read into things that aren't there?
Like hermeneutics religious scriptures of all kinds are open to interpretation, it is telling that some one such as your self will disregard teachings in favor of their own personal views, oh and I do agree with you on the South Park example all religious documents are misread generally because they are filled to the brim with bullshit and any cretin with a bent for justifying his own immoral stance quote mines from scripture then sets about ruining the lives of innocent people.
Good so you agree that illicit sex is condemned by hinduism which means homosexuality is condemned.
Glad we got that over with.
What I agree is that the scriptures are open to interpretation by anyone, just because a conventional wisdom points them in a certain way does not indicate their intent. What I was also stating is that they are written by men, in this respect they are flawed.
Oh no! I'm a bigot. I'm so ashamed and terrified. Faggot
That is up to you.
And IM the one in denial.
Maybe you are, maybe you are not, but the matter of the fact is that homosexuals are here to stay, it is your choice to be bothered by them, although I don't see why you would as they are only living out their lives as they wish which is everyone right.
Ohh you're being gay again....
So by pointing out your mistake in the use of a word, I am attracted to people of the same sex, if you are unsure of what a gay person is I would advise checking it out before entering a debate about it.
Homosexuality is immoral since time immemorial
Homosexuality was a part of many ancient civilizations such as, Greece, Rome, China, etc
Homosexuality is condemned by 99% of all religions
Probably true of most modern religions.
Homosexuals are trying to make hetreosexual things their's i.e. marriage.
Marriage between heterosexual couples is performed as both a religious and a legal ceremony, Gay couples do not get married in a religious ceremony so why would it bother you? Homosexuals are human the same as heterosexuals, should they not have the same rights?
Homosexuals are gay
If you mean happy then I'm glad for them and wonder why you are not.
If you mean they are homosexuals then there is nothing more to say other than Duuuhhhhh.
You're gay
If you mean happy, yes I am. If you mean homosexual then no I am not, why would you consider me a homosexual? unless your gaydar is going off.
Nearly all ancient civilisations/religions agree with me on most points.
In China the Confunacists said that the first duty is to raise a family and take care of them and overlooked homosexuality if it was discreet and private.
The Greeks said that those who penetrated were dominant and masculine and those who got penetrated (LOL!!!) were feminine and submissive.
I could go on forever.. but none of the cultures allowed gay marriage.
Not many had open gay relations
etc. etc.
TBH they are generally in line with me. Good to know that.
In China the Confunacists said that the first duty is to raise a family and take care of them and overlooked homosexuality if it was discreet and private.
The Greeks said that those who penetrated were dominant and masculine and those who got penetrated (LOL!!!) were feminine and submissive.
I could go on forever.. but none of the cultures allowed gay marriage.
Not many had open gay relations
So homosexuality isn't immoral since time immemorial, glad to see you agree on that.
In ancient Greece the male form was considered the ideal of beauty and the ancient Romans were fond of rampant homosexuality. If there was no gay marriage then I don't see how it impacts now, do we still have gladiatorial events where people are killed for amusement, NO. Do we still have widespread slavery, NO. Do we still have a view of women as second class citizens, NO. (OK we still have these things in some more devoutly religious and obviously morally advanced:) countries.)
But because of some all too conservative people, the rights of two people to be happy are denied based on out-dated texts and bigoted moral judgments. The fact that in the western world that the only real opposition to things like gay marriage comes from the religious communities is telling of their archaic and flawed morality. Gay people can not help being the way they are, it is not a belief system, or a choice it is an ingrained hormonally shaped sexuality, and if you are not this way you should count yourself lucky. Imagine being brought into a world where the very nature of yourself is ridiculed on any given day, where want you feel drawn to without explanation or choice is being chastised by huge groups of people, people that do not want to listen to evidence or reason, they KNOW they are right and that is that, and they WILL make your life hell because they deem themselves superior and in the right. A gay couple can not get married in a religious ceremony, so if they are not put together in the eyes of whichever God it is then it should not matter to the religious if Gay people had a legal ceremony or not.
TBH they are generally in line with me. Good to know that
They are not in line with you mate, as I said before in ancient Greece and Rome homosexuality was rampant and anyway even if ancient civilizations are in line with you then that shows where your morals stand, outdated and archaic.
But because of some all too conservative people, the rights of two people to be happy
Where do we have a right to be happy? I'm only happy if I'm not poor. Does that mean I have a right to money because it makes me happy?
are denied based on out-dated texts and bigoted moral judgments
Who says they're out-dated? Because you disagree they are out of date? If person x believes God says gay sex is wrong, why would that change over any number of years? Your dispute is that you don't believe God says that, but doesn't everyone have a right to religious freedom?
And is it bigoted to say being gay is bad? If you believe fornication (sex out of marriage) is wrong, you believe that in all cases. If you believe gay sex is wrong you believe that in all cases. Does that make someone a bigot? I'd be willing to believe you think murder is wrong in all cases, does that make you a bigot?
You are both arguing two separate points because you have two different life views. While one of you is probably right, it does not necessarily mean that the other is stupid or bigoted to believe in something different.
How did it fall apart? Two people are standing by their principles, in this situation no-one is going to concede victory. But it is still fun to hash it out.
The fact of the matter as I see it is your posts are tagged as No and you are disputing me so you are being bias in your criticism of the argument being had.
Where do we have a right to be happy? I'm only happy if I'm not poor. Does that mean I have a right to money because it makes me happy?
Everyone that is not hurting anyone else has the right to pursue their goals in life, and the things that make them happy. If you want money in life and you work to get it, and this is what makes you happy you are entitled to that. This is a right that you have, unfortunately a homosexual person in some parts of the world has no right to carry out their lives with the same dignity and respect awarded to a financial wizard.
Who says they're out-dated? Because you disagree they are out of date?
I do and so does a lot of other people, the fact of the matter is that some of the morals thought in a lot of religious texts are odious and out of line with modern understanding of humanity and our nature.
If person x believes God says gay sex is wrong, why would that change over any number of years?
It probably will not but the question is about Gay marriage and not sex.
Your dispute is that you don't believe God says that, but doesn't everyone have a right to religious freedom
Whether or not God said anything is irrelevant and i don't believe in God so I don't believe he said anything. Everyone has the right to religious freedom, a freedom granted that they respect other peoples rights and freedoms as well, including those of homosexuals to get married in a civil ceremony, one that does not involve any religious denomination, beliefs or rules.
And is it bigoted to say being gay is bad?If you believe fornication (sex out of marriage) is wrong, you believe that in all cases. If you believe gay sex is wrong you believe that in all cases. Does that make someone a bigot?
No, but it becomes so when you go out of your way to label and abuse Gay people.(The following are examples from the argument you are talking about)
You can call them butt-buddies, scissor-partners, bumchums etc. etc. but don't call them a married couple.
I need to come up with a new accurate word to describe you queers
Anyway cockmuncher........you're gay.
Faggot.
Tell me if this is the reasoning of a religious person or a bigot.
I'd be willing to believe you think murder is wrong in all cases, does that make you a bigot?
Are you seriously equating murder with homosexuality?
You are both arguing two separate points because you have two different life views.
Is this not the point?
While one of you is probably right, it does not necessarily mean that the other is stupid or bigoted to believe in something different.
Like I have said belief is everyones right and I am not in the business of disputing that, but it is not the right of the religious to force their opinions on any one especially when it has nothing to do with religion.
Everyone that is not hurting anyone else has the right to pursue their goals in life, and the things that make them happy.
Says who? There is no written protection anywhere in the constitution saying so. It can be inferred, perhaps, but it is not a guaranteed right. As such, the majority can vote on this issue any way they like until the constitution is changed in a legal fashion (i.e. the legislative branch).
Who says they're out-dated? Because you disagree they are out of date?
I do and so does a lot of other people
So? Who are you? Who are they? I can find just as many people (more probably) who disagree with you. Who says your morals are better than theirs?
a freedom granted that they respect other peoples rights and freedoms as well, including those of homosexuals to get married in a civil ceremony,
Again, says who? All of these rights and guaranteed freedoms are nice to talk about, but they just don't exist.
it becomes so when you go out of your way to label and abuse Gay people.
Yes. This is actually what I mean when I said the argument had degraded. The descent into name calling was very immature. Most of my very best friends are gay and I take real offense to comments like these.
Are you seriously equating murder with homosexuality?
No, I'm using the logic of something you believe to be wrong to show you how religious people feel. Did you know that many religions believe homosexual acts are only one step down from murder? Many religions believe God destroys whole cities if they permit homosexuality. But more importantly, this is an attempt to put you in their shoes and show one reason why they have a right to vote to make homosexual marriage illegal.
it is not the right of the religious to force their opinions on any one especially when it has nothing to do with religion.
They have a right to vote their conscious, and it has everything to do with religion. Do you have a right to force your morality on them and have their tax dollars support something they find to be a crime next to murder?
Says who? There is no written protection anywhere in the constitution saying so. It can be inferred, perhaps, but it is not a guaranteed right. As such, the majority can vote on this issue any way they like until the constitution is changed in a legal fashion (i.e. the legislative branch).
1. Life - (cf. right to live, right to life)
2. Liberty (cf. freedom, personal liberty)
3. the pursuit of Happiness (cf. personal fulfillment, professional accomplishment, basic comforts, human pleasures, luxuries, vices)
So? Who are you? Who are they? I can find just as many people (more probably) who disagree with you. Who says your morals are better than theirs?
OK I do agree with you here morality can be subject to opinion but in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights it does say:
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
It is only because of the time when this was written that it does not state Sexuality as it was written in 1948 and Homosexuality has only become legal in most countries since the 70's.
Again, says who? All of these rights and guaranteed freedoms are nice to talk about, but they just don't exist
See first right from Declaration. OK I agree again with you that the specifics are vague and do not include marriage, in countries where Gay marriage is legal those people have their rights.
Yes. This is actually what I mean when I said the argument had degraded. The descent into name calling was very immature. Most of my very best friends are gay and I take real offense to comments like these.
It was because of the name calling that I got involved in the first place, as I have said before it is everyones right to religious beliefs and I believe that if they want to go about celebrating their beliefs then that is OK too, where it stops being OK is when they try to use their scriptures to affect laws in secular societies by demonising Homosexuals and trying to change the attitudes of the people. I also have gay friends and family and I coming from a strict Roman Catholic house have witnessed the devastating effect these beliefs can have on a persons mentality and general well-being, there is a friend of the family that was beaten so badly for being Gay that he had to move away.
No, I'm using the logic of something you believe to be wrong to show you how religious people feel. Did you know that many religions believe homosexual acts are only one step down from murder?
There is no logic in the equation as the two are far from equal, murder robs people of their dignity, right to life and robs families of loved ones and causes nothing but pain it is a heinous act. Homosexuality creates no victim or pain or loss of dignity, etc.
Many religions believe God destroys whole cities if they permit homosexuality. But more importantly, this is an attempt to put you in their shoes and show one reason why they have a right to vote to make homosexual marriage illegal.
Many people don't and religious people are entitled to vote just the same as everyone else, it would be that if they kept to this right and not infringe on the rights of others that their case could be respectfully considered. I can empathize with people from a religious community, I was one as a child, my own mother would rather die than give up her beliefs.
They have a right to vote their conscious, and it has everything to do with religion. Do you have a right to force your morality on them and have their tax dollars support something they find to be a crime next to murder?
Again I agree with you on the rights of everyone to vote. I have no right to force my morality on anyone, I am not trying to do that. What I was trying to get across was the fact that not all is known and what is known is constantly being questioned, religious texts can be interpreted to anyones avail, and it is proved that they are massively edited, the problem comes when secular societies and religious communities clash.
Surely if no-one is being hurt then there should be no problem, if religious people believe it is wrong then they should consider the fact that a civil union is not a religious one, and therefore void in the eyes of their creator.
As for the fear that God destroys cities that permit homosexuality, I believe you are referring to Sodom and Gomorrah, did God not remove his faithful from these cities before destroying them and did he not pledge that he would "never again curse the ground on account of man" after Noah's flood so there is nothing to fear.
No it means that their morals can still be applied today.
homosexuality was rampant
Now if that isn't exxageration I don't know what is....
Do we still have a view of women as second class citizens, NO
Not many of these cultures did.
do we still have gladiatorial events where people are killed for amusement, NO. Do we still have widespread slavery,
Barbaric whites...
Gay people shouldn't impose their way of life to normal people. They can do what they want behind closed doors and maybe normal people can overlook it. But sitting their justifying their sinful acts is disgraceful and disgusting.
Gay people shouldn't impose their way of life to normal people
Define a normal person, last I checked everyone was different and all people are too be treated as equals.
They can do what they want behind closed doors and maybe normal people can overlook
Is there homosexual people doing anything overtly sexual in front of you all the time? Why should they have to hide and you not?
But sitting their justifying their sinful acts is disgraceful and disgusting.
It is a pity you feel this way as I guess it is only going to become easier for Gay people to go about their lives as straight people do.
My last point on this farcical debate is that Homosexuals getting married in a civil ceremony and being viewed only legally should not enrage the religious. Religious people regard their marriage as a bond put together by their God as this is not the case of Homosexual marriage why would it matter, as they will be judged by whichever God the religious person is prescribing to, which should make them more comfortable with it as they should know that punishment will be served. I do not believe in any God or follow any religion therefore the comments I just made are purely an appeal to logic.
A) I love how it was religion that was women's outlets.
B) Greeks are whites even though a lot of their philosophy was derived/similar to asian philosophy.
C) Articles written by women obviously biasedly focusing on some inequalities. They never mention how men died in their millions so that women could live.
last I checked everyone was different and all people are too be treated as equals.
Last I checked paedophiles (etc. etc.) were not treated as equals either. You want gay rights.. you best give all these sick fucks rights.
Call the gays civil partners then. Not married. Simples.
I don't have to believe in God or follow religion to have the same arguments I have.
A) I love how it was religion that was women's outlets
Fair enough I think that it was deemed that here is where they could do the least damage. Given that there is nothing they could say or do.
B) Greeks are whites even though a lot of their philosophy was derived/similar to asian philosophy.
What has this got to do with anything?
C) Articles written by women obviously biasedly focusing on some inequalities. They never mention how men died in their millions so that women could live.
And articles written bt men are bias towards women.
Was it only for the sake of women that were wars fought for, not for land, freedom, religion, wealth, to protect everyone.
last I checked everyone was different and all people are too be treated as equals.
Glad to see you agree that homosexual people should be treated as equals.
Last I checked paedophiles (etc. etc.) were not treated as equals either. You want gay rights.. you best give all these sick fucks rights.
The treatment of paedophiles should have no bearing on this debate if you want to debate that I would advise setting up a debate on it. Giving rights to Gay people is not the same, paedophiles are sexual predators that destroy lives, Gay people are not and do not.
Call the gays civil partners then. Not married. Simples.
Why, because you say so, not going to happen, don't you live in England where the rights of same sex couples to get married are law, have fun trying to change that.
I don't have to believe in God or follow religion to have the same arguments I have.
No you do not, but it is you that brought religion into this debate.
I've been tired of this long ago and can't be bothered to reply anymore.
Then why bother now? If only to have the last say.
You have no morals - because you're gay. OK you may have some morals but not when it comes to this.
Mate I am not Gay and I do have morals especially when it comes to this. Just because I agree with that Gay people should be allowed to marry does not make me Gay, I am married to a women are you?
Your ethics differ - because you think it's OK to be gay
Well, if this isn't stating the obvious.
It's disgusting
This is only to you.
You're not born gay
Yes you are, it is quite a detailed answer but if you would like I could go in to it.
It's wrong.
To you, this does not make it undeniably true.
You're gay. And a paedophile.
No I am not, are you trying to insult me, because coming from you after your tirade of bullshit it is not even in the slightest bit annoying.
Have fun watching 4year olds being raped by 60year olds.
It takes a sick mind to come up with this sort of scenario you may need help.
It is also quite telling of the validity of your arguement that you would drop so low to finish off.
ahh so instead of coming with a intelligent rebuttal you just resort to name calling, well done. to name a few religions that don't condemn gays, Buddhists don't, some sects of Hinduism doesn't, Scientology doesn't, a lot of pagans don't, FSM doesn't, neither does tarvuism. you have to understand not everyone is as closed minded as you.
They're not religions. Maybe tarvuism but who the fuck cares right?
Buddhism and Hinduism condemn homosexuality. No illicit sex/sexual behaviour. End of.
I woudn't mind taking a tolerant approach if they kept it in the background. Shagging in public mens toilets. Not on tv and cinema and public and schools and constantly in your face about how what they do is ok. They keep it hidden.. I keep my mouth shut.
you have to understand not everyone is as closed minded as you.
No I'm a man. That's the difference. You're liberals or kids. Until you dicksucks become men, you wouldn't understand this shit either.
to me mate, all religions are just as silly as the last,
cause you know, thats a great mentality to impose on people
what your doing is wrong, your a abomination.
this can lead to mental stress and denial, since homosexuality is not a choice (backed by a thing called science). and i didn't know "being a man" required the ability to completely shut off logical arguments and refuse to think that you could possibly be wrong.
But you don't have to live a homosexual lifestyle.
But you're not born gay. Aslong as that remains true then maybe we can do something to cure the disease/sickness/disorder.
No being a man is a lot of things but one of them is definately to be straight. There are extreme and I mean EXTREME and by that i mean EXTREME!! exceptions where a faggot can be considered a man... but in general the rulse stands.
"maybe"? even though there is tones of scientific evidence that shows it isn't a choice, and that it isn't a disease/ sickness / disorder (watch the video that Atlanta Esq posted near the top) your going to go with "maybe". and when a very large majority of the scientific community say being gay isn't a choice, and back it up with their "silly" facts, their probably more right then you when your argument is piratically "cause I'm right"
Well IF science 'says' that your fate is decided at birth then I'm going to say it how it is.
Bullshit.
Science only points to an increase likelyhood of being gay. Never 100% definately going to be a cocksucker. A lot of the general 'science' is flawed and sometimes doesn't even give cause.
Sexuality isn't predetermined at birth. Anybody who says so is just trying to give gays a free pass. We should start doing that with criminals. Ohh wait they are.....
so even tough there is tones of scientific evidence to back my theory's up, you calling BS on the grounds of "i don't agree so I'm going to ignore it without a shred of evidence to back me up"?
so even tough there is tones of scientific evidence to back my theory's up
Where are your links?
I've already had tons of links posted to me several hundred times on this site and have disputed them all. Your just another faggot on the block who's trying to prove another point. Lay out YOUR evidence and I'll piss all over it. That's the drill.
please give me your evidence, I'm always looking for new ways to observe things. and do you always have to try to insult people to prove a lost point? its saddening really.
RETARD ALERT! EEERT! EEERT! EEERT! No, seriously, if your just that stupid then you need the dosage upped on your meds!
brother and sister or brother and father or brother and mother or sister and father or sister and mother or sister and sister or brother and brother or paedophile and young person or dead body and necrophile or a dog and a bestiality person.
well of coarse not, those are illegal, because of defects in child births, and animal cruelty laws. second, were not advocating that. third, we accept people who don't do things wrong, because MANY studies have proven that sexuality is proven before birth.
fourth, calling people names just shows how unexcepting you RED NECKS are. see, we can be just as cruel. You really need to read your little bible. doesn't teach you to accept, forgive thou neighbor (even though the gays arent your neighbors, and never did anything to you)? Did your "Christ" not die for ALL of us?
"Blah blah blah anybody that isn't accepting of all types of peoples is a bigot. Have fun advocating paedophilia."
Were talking about a relationship between two consenting adults not one adult and an underage kid that either has no idea that what their doing with the adult is wrong or is being forced to commit the act.
As an Englishman, I believe I have the authority to declare that the defenition of the word marriage is 'The state of being married', or as a noun 'An act of lawful romantic union between two persons'.