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.
Marriage is about two consenting adults not related who are in love, and want to be married. Marriage is a basic human right, and saying it is like pedos, or incest people, is homophobic and wrong. I am bisexual and am only sexually attracted to consenting adults, who are NOT related to me.
Marriage is about two consenting adults not related who are in love - adopting such a definition would be a gift to incest rights groups, because it would allow them to make the claim that their rights are being violated by that very definition.
Why wouldn't it? These groups are already making such claims, and adopting a definition which specifically denies them the right to marriage, would give allow them to construct the same type of narrative as gay activists use today.
I was talking about whether or not there should be a formal definition of marriage written into law, which would include gay marriage as an option. Such a definition would also include consenting incestious marriage, OR specifically mention that the participants should not be related to each other. That's just simple logic and has nothing to do with by support or lack of thereof, for gay marriage. I wasn't even talkling about gay marriage itself. It would help if you actually read what people post before replying.
Keep your hateful propaganda from the right wing to yourself............................................................................................
You don't have any facts, only right wing lies, and bigotry. People like you are why LGBTQI+ people often kill themselves. You don't care about the results of your hate speech.
I don't have to prove a negative...............................................................................................................................................................................................................
No, you don't. You have to prove your claim that I was lying
More laughable sophistry. Science and academia don't work like law. In academia you prove the statements you make or people ignore them. In criminal law everything you say is true until someone proves it isn't.
It isn't a lie. I suggest you also go away and learn to differentiate between literal and figurative speech. Clearly, the words "no one supports incest" are intended as a general rule, not as a universally binding declaration of mathematical fact.
If you didn't have sophistry you would have absolutely nothing.
adopting such a definition would be a gift to incest rights groups, because it would allow them to make the claim that their rights are being violated by that very definition.
Any such definition would either allow for incestious marriage, OR contain provisions which would specifically ban marriage between close relatives. The latter would create an opportunity for incest rights activists to campaign for a truly "equal" definition. Which would possivbly create a precedent that could be used by other sex rights groups to stiil further the definition, removing other restrictions like the number of participants.
Marriage is the coming together of a consensual couple, and gay marriage activists in no way advocate for incest. Conflating the two is a moronic endeavour. It shows a profound lack of ability to discern the boundaries of this social movement.
this definition of marriage does not exclude marriage between close relatives
What in God's name makes you think he was "defining" marriage?? I suggest you go away and think about the difference between description and definition. He doesn't have to specifically exclude incest during a general verbal description of what constitutes marriage you pompous buffoon.
In actual fact, the dictionary doesn't exclude incest in its definition of marriage either. Not unless you include the parenthesis. See:-
The legally or formally recognized union of two people as partners in a personal relationship
What in God's name makes you think he was "defining" marriage?
Because this debate is about the definition of marriage. By default I always presume that a person responding to my debate is not an complete imbeccile.
I suggest you go away and think about the difference between description and definition.
I suggest you get off the drugs before answering any of my debates.
Tell me what movement is there advocating for incest? How is LGBT marriage a slippery slope to incest?
It's bullshit.
Humans naturally don't want to fuck their brothers and sisters. It's an instinctual ability to discern between people who would harm or help the gene pool.
Tell me Brit do the Muslims you support have any boundaries when it comes to gay marriage. Go ahead and spin it you idiot.
Sure. I'll "spin it".
You support a party which has voted to outlaw gay marriage for the past two hundred years and somehow believe this qualifies you as a champion of gay rights.
A universal but limited right to marry would be "every consenting adult has the right to marry else otherwise prohibited by law". Each prohibition would have to be justified based on it infringing some other right.
Thank you for actually adressing the debate question. Yes, that would be the proper legal definition. But this raises another question: which specific rights would be violated if a consenting gay incestious couple was allowed to marry?
Well, it's not so much about the prohibition of gay marriage per se. The premise of this debate is that the legal construct of gay marriage is inherently destructive, either to the legal systems as a whole, or to the concept of human rights. Since it opens up all sorts of leeways for activist groups to broaden the definition of the right to marry.
In my opinion, the proper way to handle this issue would be to allow civil unions, not only for gay people. The right to adoption should be evaluated on a case to case basis and not restricted to married couples only. This should have nothing to do with sex or sexuality. Violence against gays or any other social group, should be countered by improving procedural law.
When did Insanity metamorphosize into a Right?The minimum argument length is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of
For Progressive extremists on the Left, rights are confined to their Special interest groups only.
This LGBT hysteria is purely politics. It's big money and votes to Democrats from LGBT lobbies.
Who in their right mind would be so concerned about forcing every State to change their marriage laws, were it not big money and votes to their political goals.
When it comes to our religious freedoms and rights, you will notice how these same Progressives scream "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE"!!!
NO COMMUNITY HAS THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE A PRAYER AT BEGINNING F SCHOOL DAY!!!
NO COMMUNITY HAS A RIGHT TO CHOOSE TO DISPLAY A NATIVITY SCENE ON PUBLIC GROUNDS!!!
BIG BROTHER WILL TELL EVERY COMMUNITY WHAT WILL BE ALLOWED!!!
These paranoid anti Christian bigots scream how no one should be offended by seeing a religious symbol on pubic grounds, but it is OK to offend entire States by forcing them to sanction LGBT agendas that affect our Culture, our Churches, our children, and every part of our lives.
Their hypocritical double standards are sickening. The Left is clearly at war with our nation's Christian heritage, and are using every unnatural sexual orientation they can find to divide America into factions.
The Left constantly tries to judge Christians as homophobes (a complete lie), and doing so to demonize people for their beliefs. The Left judges any Bible believing Christian, calling them fundies, zealots, etc. for merely believing what their scriptures says. HANG THEM! HANG THEM BIBLE BELIEVING CHRISTIANS!
If you give into the Left, you will be praised as a real Christian who will sanction anything the State tells you to sanction. The Bible is very clear about homosexuality, bisexuality, etc., but to be accepted as a good new age Christian, you must first deny God's word and worship at the alter of political correctness.
The Left tries to create controversy at every turn, pitting Americans against each other, pitting religions against each other, even to the point of disrespecting our flag. This is all their master plan to turn America into a Godless Sodom and Gomorrah.
That is another lie, from a well know liar. If you don't stop lying, I will report you to the Anti Defamation League.
In fairness the Anti Defamation League are liars themselves. It's an Israeli right wing front. You should read some of Noam Chomsky's criticism about them.
FW will never stop slandering you unless you either agree with him about everything or disagree with him so much that he just bans and ignores you eternally. He slanders everyone and everything he disagrees with because he is incapable of understanding what he hates thus can't accurately critique it.
you enjoy verbally abusing 85 year old men for the crime of being liberal instead of socialist.
He follows me around insulting my intelligence, judging me just based on my trolling side instead of the serious side he either doesn't engage with or doesn't comprehend whenever it arrives. Also I never attacked him for being a liberal. Whenever I "verbally abuse" him it is because of his own snide comments warranting the response or because he refuses to understand something that I am trying to tell him.
It amazes me that if you do not read my words, then how could you rationally find fault with them?
Are you saying that you are an anti Christian bigot, who simply lashes out at a person for being Conservative or Christian, without even reading their words?
I give FACTS when speaking to Democrats supporting No Restriction abortions! FACTS!
I never say ALL Millennials are stupid. There is no group where we can say they ALL are a certain way.
I have always stated how a COUPLE Democrats voted for the GOP 20 week abortion limit. A COUPLE OUT OF 50! I might be able to vote for those two Democrats if they were truly pro life.
I have never said all Atheists hate Christians, just the majority on this site.
I have yet to meet an Atheist who would never vote for these radical pro abortion democrats. It is not moral to vote for politicians who vow to keep No Restriction abortions legal.
Please let me know when you find one.
I have never sad all Rich people are good. I have said many times that no one is good, and that without Christ's sacrifice, we deserve everything we get.
The Bible actually says that it is hard for a Rich man to make it to heaven. I'm simply not going to demonize a person for being rich when they do so much good for society. Biting the hand that feeds us is ludicrous.
This war against the Rich is purely a Left wing political strategy to usher in their socialistic agendas.
I'm simply not going to demonize a person for being rich
I never said you should demonize a person for being rich. I said you should be skeptical of a bunch of rich people who have a FINANCIAL INCENTIVE to deny climate change telling you to deny climate change.
Oh, so now it's not about greed, it's about climate change?
If you have a business creating thousands of jobs, and an extremist like Al Gore comes along and declares your business to be outlawed. How would you feel about that?
On some extremist's say so, you have lost your entire career and business. I would expect any business to fight these environmental nazi police.
When the sane people of the world all come together, and find a compromise to grandfather in better ways to create energy, people might actually listen. These same fossi fuel companies should be the ones building the next plausible energy source.
Yeah yeah yeah poor little conservative Christian. Why won't people read your shouty messages about people who aren't following the Bible. FUCK SAKE! There there.
I agree there are many fools today who will deny Biology to fit into this political correct cult. They have the bully pulpit of fake news on their side.
In the end, our culture will destroy itself, and we will all start over, if God does not put an end to this insanity first.
Where did I see this all before? Oh, that's right, Sodom and Gomorrah.
"Biology" would have us all start fucking at puberty as frequently as we possibly can to make as many babies as possible so that our genes are passed on. Doesn't sound very Christian to me. The idea of no sex before marriage etc etc is very anti biology too.
I have read your words many times, which is exactly why I almost never read them. Based on what I read, I deemed it too insane to read more of very often.
So like any other bigot, you lash out at Christians without even reading their words. You have already decided in your pea brain that Christians are BADDDDDDDD!