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.
Yes, there is no legitimate, compelling interest for the state to deny them the right to enter into a binding contract such as marriage with each other.
Not allowing them to marry is like taking the chance away to be their happy and free selves. The thing is, you can't change sexual orientation. They know that it is "bad" (well according to society) so why would they be gay on purpose? I think this should not be a debate topic, because there is no thing we can do about being homosexual. In the 1950s the governments tried to "cure" gay people with changing or erasing their hormones, and most of these movements ended with suicide. Did we send them to death? And it's not a thing that was only usual back then, not one or two homosexuals are killing themselves in this very moment you are reading this. "Be yourself" they say, but how can you if it's illegal? Another point worth mentioning is, they say we mustn't allow it because in a same-sex relationship there can't be kids naturally and this would affect our popularity. Well, have you heard about adopting or surrogate mothers? "But they don't want children, you may say. Let me tell you, this has nothing to do with being gay. There are straight people who die with no successors left behind and that is okay, but if it's a homosexual person it is not acceptable? Gays will be gay if it's against the law, and if it's not, so might as well allow them to marry and have children, so it 'doesn't affect the popularity'. Tell me if I'm being inexperienced but I have not heard a single story stating a man has turned from gay to straight. In addition, if we hate gay people because they don't have kids, what about priests, infertiles? You may ask, how can I compare them to infertiles whilst it's not something you can change, that's right but so is sexual orientation. I need you to think it over rationally. Just take a look at it from a different perspective. If you were told tomorrow that you mustn't be straight, it's illegal, what would you?
Human sexuality can be more fluid than you represent it as being, and may change over the course of one's life. The notion that sexuality is fixed can actually be rather damaging in my opinion. That said, I consider those changes as well as more static sexuality to be entirely beyond our control and also utterly inconsequential in this context.
What we term as marriage is centered around a need to recognize a bond that supports the rearing of children. The need for this stable bond is rooted in nature and not unique to humans. The involvement of government in supporting this bond is legitimate in the context of rearing children.
Laws that seek to support marriages for other reasons alone, do not carry this same legitimacy, but rather attempt to address human rights in one form or another. From this perspective marriage can be legitimately sanctioned by states for two reasons.
The human rights argument is far less concise than that of rearing children. This fact requires that greater care be used in its interpretation in future legal decisions to avoid clashes with current cultural norms. i.e. the "slippery slope" analogy.
Huh...excuse me??Im not a human trafficker.Love is regardless of color,religion,caste and so on...Dont they have feelings too?So who are we to stop them.
Maybe they are different from us,but if we dont wanna marry them they may fall in love to someone they would love to marry.So we are not to interfere in their life..
I think tax breaks are the problem in the first place. Government shouldn't be trying to encourage or discourage these kinds of social conventions with monetary incentives.
Marriage is a contract. Forming a contract is a good social custom when it concerns children. But people have come up with other reasons to form such a contract. Calling it marriage and believing it to be spiritually important shouldn't have an impact on the laws concerning it. The governments role should be and always should have been no more than contract enforcement. No one would care if that's all it ever was.
So yes, they should be allowed to marry. Not because of love (that has too many other implications), not because of sanctity, and not because of taxes. Simply because contract enforcement is the only role the government should have in marriage.
What I mean is homosexuality, etc. is a natural common trait existing throughout the animal kingdom and human history. And that homosexuality is commonly accepted to the ancient Greeks, ancient British, etc, and it was never a problem or anything I think one would deem wrong with it, the way it is wrong by todays standards to cut off someone's hand for stealing like Hammurabi's code permitted.
people in the LGBT community are people just like us. They're humans. They have feelings, and emotions. We shouldn't let their sexuality get in the way of saying they can or cannot love and be married. They pay taxes. They buy groceries. They do everything so why should we treat them any differently? On the inside we're all the same. There's no need for disrespect towards the LGBT community. They deserve equal rights..meaning they should be allowed to marry.
As bystanders, we indeed have no right to deny the love between LGBTs and so forth cannot deny their right to marry and form a union, but shouldn't someone be thinking on account of the child they might have? Perhaps they can live on with society looking at them from a less than pleasant light, but can their children live up to it? A child can't possibly handle all the bullying and discrimination the child will face outside. It doesn't matter if the would be organic change or even government approval, that child will still live with the thought of being different from others. On account of the child, perhaps LGBTs should keep their relationships private, though informal.
LGBT marriages need not be a public affair, nor need they inherently involve children. More importantly LGBT parents with children already exist, regardless of whether we legally recognize them as families. Failure to extend equal legal recognition hurts children by denying them equal legal/financial rights and protections extended to children of non-LGBT parents. It also stigmatizes LGBT persons, perpetuating the idea that LGBT status is a valid basis for ridicule and increasing the likelihood of bullying. On account of the child, perhaps we should discourage bigotry and discrimination instead of limiting the rights of their parents.
I think you need to head out to the west and check out how normal children from same-sex couples. Or head down south and check out how interracial children often get teased. Does this mean that anyone who comes from a situation which will lead to teasing should be (in a sense) punished?
Well, if you think about it, this generation has become more accepting. The only reason a child would get made fun of for having parents of the same sex, is if that child was raised in an environment where the parents make fun of children that have parents of the same sex. It would be how the parents of the other children raise them, that would cause the child to either accept the fact that the child has parents of the same sex, or to reject and make fun of the child for having parents of the same sex. And anyway, bullies just find your weaknesses, it can be literally anything, having too much hair, being too fat and so on.
The solution to this is to change the way the society views transexuals and homosexuals, not telling them that they are not allowed to marry. That's like saying that majority of the rape victims are women and majority of the rape is committed by men to those women, so women should lock themselves at home all the time. See how this is wrong? The solution to this should be to get those that commit rape (men and women) to stop committing rape; not telling the victims to avoid getting raped.
Do you understand the slippery slope concept? I have been watching the slippery slope for many decades now and Gay marriage is just one more nail in the coffin of what was once America.
When you allow one fringe group of people to change our natural marriage laws for the past centuries, you must then allow every other weird group out there that wants to change our marriage laws the same rights. Do you want a man having 20 wives? IT'S HIS EQUAL RIGHTS TO DO SO under the Left's lunacy for Gay marriage.
Where does it stop? I guess people who want the Government raising and indoctrinating our children will be the first ones supporting the death of the family unit. No wonder we have so many gangs today. Kids desperately seeking some semblance of a family.
Political correctness has bullied doctors and psychologists into changing their view of Homosexuality and changing their view of what is the best environment for raising our children. It used to be that psychologists did not consider homosexuality a normal natural thing. They also understood that a mother and father family unit was the best environment for raising a well adjusted child. Nahhhhhh, the Left has bullied them into believing grass is no longer green. They say two men can raise some other women's child just as well as a mother and father. Our children need the nurturing from both male and female role models, not some unnatural union of two men.
Civil unions would have been the natural answer but with the slippery slope our nation is dying from within.
"Do you understand the slippery slope concept" Do you understand the slippery slope LOGICAL FALLACY? Because that is the entirety of your comment. Like the whole thing. 110%.
So are you also against the idea of adoption of a child by a single parent? (divorced or separated or just single or whatever)
And the 3 major reasons why kids today join gangs are:
1) Lack of jobs for youth
2) Poverty compounded by social isolation
3) Domestic violence
If seeking semblance of a family is a reason, then how does a family with homosexual parents not fit the meaning of a family? Some well reputed orphanage or a retirement home today takes care of its members like a family. In face they do call themselves a family. If the society can accept that (actually they more than accept it; whenever there is a documentary or a video about things like this, people get teary eyed and say that this is what humanity is!), then why can society not accept this?
Any compassionate society would expect the best for our children and any thinking adult knows that a mother and father are best for raising a well adjusted child. Spew your Liberal Gay rhetoric to low end voters who actually elected Obama.
"Any compassionate society" would give orphans a chance for a loving family. There are not enough families for orphans as is, and you are trying to actively deny them homes. That is not compassionate, it is borderline evil, and you are doing it entirely due to our political agenda, which is even worse.
But I like how you rely so much on insulting people again, which decrying people who insult you.
"You are a hypocrite as usual. You insult me just as much as I insult you. You do it in a way which in your hypocritical mind is not an insult. IT IS!" I have stopped insulting you entirely, and have not insulted you for quite a while. You have continued to do so.
Actually it would be a brilliant idea for two men to raise a child that came from another woman. Isn't that what adopting basically is? Isn't adopting basically two people raising a child together, even though the child didn't come from them? The child was put in the adoption center because the woman that gave birth to it couldn't raise it, and it's wrong for two men to step in and raise the child that a woman can't? And if it was a couple that put the child for adoption then it's wrong for a homosexual couple to raise the child that the couple, probably straight, couldn't raise?
"It used to be that psychologists did not consider homosexuality a normal natural thing." Well, homosexuality is actually very natural. It can be found in over 1500 of the species we know of on Earth. Many animals like chimps, dolphins, giraffes and so on engage in homosexual and bisexual acts. And there are instances of homosexual animals raising young in the wild and in captivity.
"Do you want a man having 20 wives?"
Well, if you think about it, there are many people who marry multiple people. There are religions that allow their people to marry multiple people. It's called polygamy.
Do you know how many people on the Left spew the lie of how animals are homosexual? Are people such as yourself that totally stupid or do you have an agenda?
You show me one chimp, one giraffe, one dolphin that is pure gay. Are you trying to say these animals never have sex with the other sex? GET REAL!
Animals are animals and would hump anything that moves when they are aroused. I guess when a dog humps another male dog, he is Gay and would refuse to have sex with a female dog?
It is beyond reprehensible when those on the Left spew such lies.
Polygamy is not legal in most states. Where are the Liberal judges forcing entire states to allow polygamy? It's their equal rights don't you know? You are such hypocrites!
"Animals that live a completely homosexual life can also be found. This occurs especially among birds that will pair with one partner for life, which is the case with geese and ducks. Four to five percent of the couples are homosexual."
Hogwash! So tell me how you would ever know if geese have sex with the opposite sex. I guess some Geese never go through the natural mating cycles. I suppose Gay right activists follow geese around their entire life. GET REAL!
A) I didn't expect you to believe it because facts are not important to you.
B) Whether or not it occurs in nature actually has little or nothing to do with whether it should be legal - airplanes don't occur in nature and I don't see you calling for them to be illegal.
C) They pay the same taxes regardless of being gay, they should get equal treatment by their government.
"Do you know how many people on the Left spew the lie of how animals are homosexual? Are people such as yourself that totally stupid or do you have an agenda?" Many people have provided you with evidence that you refuse to respond to.
"You show me one chimp, one giraffe, one dolphin that is pure gay. Are you trying to say these animals never have sex with the other sex? GET REAL!" People already have, then you didn't respond.
"Animals are animals and would hump anything that moves when they are aroused. I guess when a dog humps another male dog, he is Gay and would refuse to have sex with a female dog?" Still refusing to recognize evidence that contradicts your misguided preconceptions.
"Polygamy is not legal in most states. Where are the Liberal judges forcing entire states to allow polygamy? It's their equal rights don't you know? You are such hypocrites!" Do you have a legal argument as to how polygamy falls under Due Process or Equal Protections?
Oh, and I love how you banned me from one of your debates. Thanks for proving that you just love the censorship you accuse liberals of employing. Good to know you do not value freedom of speech :P
There are many animals that when they find a partner, they stay with that partner for the rest of their life, and in some instances, the partner they find is actually of the same sex. Also, there are animals that stay with on partner their whole life, but only have sex with the other sex to produce offspring. And by animals, are you referring to all animals, because never forget, humans are animals too, which means, we humans also hump anything that moves? I don't believe so, unless you do, which by all means go ahead, I won't judge.
Polygamy is indeed not legal in most states but so is owning a monkey. But there are still people who believe in polygamy, and there are religions that practice polygamy.
I must ask, how are we hypocrites? This is a debate on homosexuals and the such, not on if polygamy should be legal in all states, that subject can be on another debate, but at the moment not here. But, I thank you for giving me another idea for a separate debate.
I'm not wasting any more time saying the obvious. There are no Gay animals who refuse to have sex with the opposite sex.
You missed the entire point AS USUAL. Gays get special treatment on their supposed rights while people who want multiple wives GET NO MENTION! It political correct lunacy where they are trying to tear down what the Bible says.
There are no Gay animals who refuse to have sex with the opposite sex.
Except, there are. Sheep are known to frequently be bisexual, but roughly 8% of sheep are known to form male-male bonds exclusively, ignoring female sheep entirely.
Sourced from Sciencedirect.com. Unfortunately you can only view the abstract without paying for the specific data or maintaining an account. I'm sure I'm not the only one on here with access... Though I doubt you'll personally even read the abstract and will probably just attack the source, claiming its trying to push a liberal gay agenda or something.
These studies and sources are most always put out by people with an agenda. They are not worth the paper they are written on.
It's amazing with all the nature shows on TV, they have never shown a sheep that exclusively has sex with the same sex and never the opposite sex. That is ludicrous and if it ever has happened, that would make the animal as abnormal and unnatural as Homosexuality in people. It would prove nothing more than the possibility of mental disorder in animals, etc. etc.
These studies and sources are most always put out by people with an agenda. They are not worth the paper they are written on.
Called it!
Everything you post is put out by someone with an agenda, and is only worth the bits its made of is because plain text takes little capacity and data is so cheap these days.
It's amazing with all the nature shows on TV, they have never shown a sheep that exclusively has sex with the same sex and never the opposite sex.
Right, so now I'm to believe you've watched every nature show ever with undivided attention, including multiple nature shows specifically dedicated to sheep? I'm not aware of more than a couple of documentaries or shows where sheep were even featured prominently. Sheep aside, homosexual tendencies amongst animals are pretty well documented on nature shows.
It's only ludicrous to you because it is inconsistent with your flawed worldview.
That is ludicrous and if it ever has happened, that would make the animal as abnormal and unnatural as Homosexuality in people.
How exactly do you define 'natural' so as to exclude animals from it? Seriously, do tell. Abnormal, I'll buy- it is still a minority of the population so is far from the norm. I contest that abnormal OR unnatural implies anything bad, however. Cobra venom is natural, and it is normal to die from exposure to too much cobra venom. Anti-venom is unnatural, and the ability to survive exposure to high levels of cobra venom is abnormal.
It would prove nothing more than the possibility of mental disorder in animals, etc. etc.
Before you can go there, you have a pretty significant burden of proof to establish homosexuality as a mental disorder.
Assuming you manage to do so (you won't, but I'll humor you), this suggests that every single sexually reproducing species has its own form of this 'mental disorder,' UNIQUE to each specific species (as each species has a different brain structure, different hormonal makeup in respect to their mating behavior, and different overall patterns of behavior pertaining to mating), with very similar rates of occurence, all resulting in the same specific changes of the species-specific mating behavior to direct them towards the non-preferred sex, that persists from generation to generation.
That's almost as ridiculous as young-earth creationism.
If by "agenda" you mean "biologists", then you are correct. But please, try to provide evidence that discredits them.
"It's amazing with all the nature shows on TV, they have never shown a sheep that exclusively has sex with the same sex and never the opposite sex. " So you wont trust scientific studies, but you will trust "shows on TV". That right there is what is wrong with America.
You don't care what is natural, or unnatural. You just trust whatever you see on TV.
We have given you evidence of homosexuality in animals half a dozen times, and you never respond to the links when we do.
Homosexuals do not get special treatment by being allowed to get married the way everyone else does.
Letting any consenting adult marry any other consenting adult confers no special treatment to anyone. The structure of the marriage contract does not currently work for more than two people. If you want to change that, by all means, go right ahead. I might even agree with you there.
But don't try to pretend that people desiring their constitutional and civil rights has anything to do with tearing down the Bible, because it simply doesn't.
Being able to marry is not "special treatment", it's being able to do what other couples that are in love do, get married. Would you like to know what special treatment is? That would be not paying taxes.
So a man and 20 women who love each other should be able to get married? Do you have brain to know the special treatment that Gays are getting? Why is their tiny little group getting special marriage rights when no one else does.
"So a man and 20 women who love each other should be able to get married? " If polygamists want to start a movement, they can.
"Do you have brain to know the special treatment that Gays are getting? " The "special treatment" they are getting is the denial of their civil and constitution rights.
"Why is their tiny little group getting special marriage rights when no one else does." ....What? How is letting any two consenting adults get married giving anyone "special rights"? That is giving them the exact same rights we heterosexuals posses.
What kind of fool says that Polygamists should start their own movement when it takes a biased Liberal media to get your agendas heard. Do you actually think Liberal media would push the Polygamist's message non stop on the media as they do the Gay agenda? Quit spewing such ludicrous nonsense. Do you think the Democrat party would push the Polygamist message as they do the Gay agendas?
Try once in your life addressing the point. Only Gays get special treatment and special mention on our media. All other groups might as well be dead.
"What kind of fool says that Polygamists should start their own movement when it takes a biased Liberal media to get your agendas heard.'
It doesn't. There are many forums from which one can start a movement.
"Do you actually think Liberal media would push the Polygamist's message non stop on the media as they do the Gay agenda? " The liberal media hardly "pushes the "gay agenda" (nonsensical term),. though certain outlets sure do. I have no doubt that the "liberal media" would cover stories regarding a polygamist movement. Despite this, none of that has to do with the topic we were referring to.
"Quit spewing such ludicrous nonsense. Do you think the Democrat party would push the Polygamist message as they do the Gay agendas?" Do you think they wouldn't? Why not?
"Try once in your life addressing the point. Only Gays get special treatment and special mention on our media. All other groups might as well be dead." I have asked you to demonstrate this special treatment and you haven't, once. How is every consenting adult being able to marry another consenting adult of their choice special treatment, in any way? How is that anything other than equal treatment?
The reason why you think that gays get special treatment is because always on the news. The reason why they're always on the news is because there are CHILDREN HURTING AND/OR KILLING themselves because they are not accepted by their own PARENTS. All because they like the same gender.
Funny how kids who do other things their parents don't like, such as taking drugs and getting kicked out of the house, get into prostitution, etc. do not kill themselves.
They do, actually. That is a fairly strange statement of yours to make. All sorts of people kill themselves, including kids, and for all sorts of reasons. There is a higher proportion of LGBT children killing themselves because of people (such as yourself) that essentially demonize them, tell them they are unnatural, wrong, perverse, etc, which leads to a lower self worth.
Hogwash, the reason Gays get on the news constantly is because of a Liberal biased politically correct media pushing their agenda. To not get this is amazing.
Fats kids are humiliated in schools and ridiculed by their parents but they are not killing themselves. Hmmmm.
"Hogwash, the reason Gays get on the news constantly is because of a Liberal biased politically correct media pushing their agenda. To not get this is amazing.
Fats kids are humiliated in schools and ridiculed by their parents but they are not killing themselves. Hmmmm."
There are plenty of fat kids who commit suicide. And skinny kids. And all sorts of kids. Why make such silly statements?
And yes, liberal media does indeed cover LGBT issues disproportionately.
He is correctly pointing out the problem with the logic you are employing and how it violates the Equal Protections Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The only way your logical can be legally enforced is if it is applied to heterosexual couples who are also incapable of procreating.
Because the topic is: Should homosexuals, transsexuals, so on, be allowed to marry?
Two people of the opposite sex can produce a child, therefore that is correct. If a woman cannot produce a child but the man can, they can still marry because they are not the same sex and when they engage in sexual intercourse, they can possibly produce a child during sexual intercourse.
Two people of the opposite sex can produce a child, therefore that is correct.
When this statement is not correct though, what should we do?
If a woman cannot produce a child but the man can, they can still marry because they are not the same sex and when they engage in sexual intercourse, they can possibly produce a child during sexual intercourse.
If one of them is sterile, they can't get pregnant. Should sterile people be banned from getting married?
Not all heterosexuals CAN produce a child, so the question is if you still believe they should be able to marry if one of them is infertile, despite failing the standard you have set for marriage.
Rape & incest can produce a child - should they be legal then?
A woman who is past menopause cannot have a child - should she not be allowed to marry?
Several diseases cause sterility - should people with those diseases never be allowed to marry?
If two people of the same sex can produce a child
Two people of the same sex can produce a child - using IVF, surrogates, etc. They may also have children from prior relationships, or decide to adopt etc.
What does that have to do with two people of the same sex?
If a man and another man have sex, where does the sperm go? A man cannot have child because he is a man and not a woman. Two women can't make a baby because there is no male sperm to fertilize the egg.
What does that have to do with two people of the same sex?
The debate topic includes transsexuals and your criteria is whether children can be produced - so I am asking if you are ok with two transsexuals getting married since they can produce a baby.
can't make a baby
As I said above: (and you did not address)
Two people of the same sex can produce a child - using IVF, surrogates, etc. They may also have children from prior relationships, or decide to adopt etc.
Additionally, it may soon be possible to use dna to create children no matter which genders are involved - ref
If the reason why homosexuals should not be granted marriage because they can't produce children, and the reason why wild animals mate is to produce offspring, then why are there cases of homosexuality in wild animals, whose usually only reason to mate is to have offspring? And not all men and women want children, should those type of people not be able to marry as well?
Do we really need all married couples to have a child? Because, I'm pretty sure that its alright if a few married couples, or rather couples in general can't produce a child. We have many children on Earth, many people. Back then that would be somewhat of a valid argument because there weren't too many people, but now it isn't very valid because we're kind of over populated. It's not like if we legalize marriage of the LGBT community, then all the humans will start having sex with the same sex and no more children will be created leading to the extinction of the human race, its just more breathing space for the LGBT community.
I think it's gone too far. Punishing a person who won't bake a cake for them... Come on! I don't think they should receive any special protection. I heard about a church who was forced to take a gay into a position of leadership! How is that OK! A church exists to teach the truths of the Bible. You can't force a church to be led by someone who is against what you believe. That's like making a Democrat the leader of the Republican party!
This is entirely non-responsive to the debate question, but...
Punishing a person who won't bake a cake for them... Come on! I don't think they should receive any special protection.
If your rationale is consistent, then you must necessarily also believe that Brown v. Board was in error and that separate but equal is not actually in violation of the Constitution. Your view stands in stark contradiction to decades of standing common and congressional law. Refusing service to a person on the basis of a protected identity has consistently been found to be a civil rights violation, and protected status has consistently been extended to any group that has experienced pervasive historical and contemporary discrimination which absolutely pertains to LGBTQ persons.
I heard about a church who was forced to take a gay into a position of leadership! How is that OK! A church exists to teach the truths of the Bible. You can't force a church to be led by someone who is against what you believe. That's like making a Democrat the leader of the Republican party!
Assuming this is even true, I do not find this especially objectionable given the tax breaks and preferential treatment religious (especially Christian) organizations receive from our government. Perhaps if there were an actual separation of church and state in this nation I would be more inclined towards sympathy.
Ya know, I have a perfect pun for this. Confucius, I mean no harm to you and your ideas, I think you are very intelligent and clever, please forgive me for this pun... Confucius was Confused.
