CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Things that require a license are a priviledge, not a right
Driving is a priviledge because it requires a license which can be revoked.
Freedom of speech is a right, not a priviledge, because it does not require a license and thus cannot be revoked.
Marriage is also a priviledge. If you don't believe me then why can't you marry more than one person? Just try marrying more than one person and see how fast they revoke your license to marry those that came after your first marriage.
You have a right to apply for a license but the license is not guaranteed. For example, a driver's license. BTW, not that there are different types of driver's license and no one complains that they are being discriminated against or that separate but equal isn't equal, or any of those things ;)
Well yeah the license isn't guaranteed. But people are not denied driver's licenses because of their sexual preference. It's typically because they misused their license before, didn't take preparatory courses, have a physical problem like blindness, etc. Same should go for marriage. All should be allowed unless it's obvious they can't, like a person with down's syndrome.
Yeah, that's one solution. Another solution is to have a different license. You know we have class A driver's license and a class B and a class C and no one complains?
Although I do recognize the reasoning you set forth that marriage is not a right, but what is a right is access to privileges. Most people would find it an abridge of rights to deny individuals the privilege of driving based on their race or gender. These two scenarios can also violate the pursuit of happiness right that The Declaration of Independence sets forth. It is an American right to have to access to a legitimate reason for being denied a privilege.
They don't dissagree with me. The supreme court and I agree that homosexuals should be able to get a marriage license.
I disagree with homosexuals that belive that just because something is right, it ought to be done. That's not how the world works. They should just call it something else, get the license and whatever priviledges come with that license and be done with it.
The "right" thing to do would be to cut back on carbon emissions. But if Australia were to do that, its economy would suffer and thousands would lose their jobs.
OK, so let me see if I get this straight. Some young, teenage, American, kid can come up with a solution where Australian adults have failed. I wouldn't tell them that if I were you ;)
It's the same result they could come up with if special interests weren't involved, and there weren't people denying the overwhelming evidence of global warming.
See what clarity a little objectivity can bring to a situation?
And neither is happening anytime soon, so why not move on to the next logical step which is, try something else. I mean, why bang your head on a keyboard ;)
As far as Australia, just something I read about them not buying into G.W. and maybe getting a rise out of Dacey. I try to be efficient wherever possible ;)
BTW, you may find what this top shrink thinks interesting:
Exactly. You can argue that it won't happen anytime soon, and you're probably right. Just don't try to say it shouldn't happen, because we both know that's not true.
And, of course, I don't give a rat's ass about your politically motivated shrink.
huh.?..i must have missed somethin...oh well, thats what i get, when i hang out the ass of this place d&n;..:)..tut tut on that note its time for zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
lol ..i think you ought to stop trying to work me out joe..you just keep getting it wrong ....Do you think now, that im one of these people that sit around the log fire singing songs about hugging trees and plugging cows backsides in order to try and save the planet?....lol
Anyway, if there's more cost than benefit to cutting emissions, then cutting emissions is not the right thing to do, is it? And we should not do it."- I get what you're picking at, but it's all in opinion when it comes to things such as gay marriage, so there is no real "right thing to do". There are no costs or benefits of it.
Emissions is a load bullshit, so it's not a good topic to realate to. And it has to deal with statistics, not opinion. Such as the hottest year on record is 1935. And they weren't freaking out. Anyway, before i start ranting.
I don't support gay marriage, by the way. I don't really care for it, as long as they can't get married by the Catholic Church, otherwise I would leave the only sane type of Christianity.
There are no costs to banning gay marriage? Tell that to the people who can't get married.
Emissions is most certainly not "a load of bullshit". The IPCC is full of highly qualified efforts who state that it is a serious problem. The people who question it are for the most part are politically or financially motivated, or they are informed by people who are.
"There are no costs to banning gay marriage? Tell that to the people who can't get married."- I mean economically.
"Emissions is most certainly not "a load of bullshit". The IPCC is full of highly qualified efforts who state that it is a serious problem. The people who question it are for the most part are politically or financially motivated, or they are informed by people who are."- I get informed by all sources. I'll post roof that global warming is fake, emissions don't do much regarding Temparature, but in regards to health it is.
I'm sorry but what are you talking about? Homosexual couples are denied marriage licenses. Clearly people are being given different rights.
If what you are trying to argue is that "homosexuals can get married, just not to someone of the same sex" then this too shows that people have rights that are not equal, but seperate. Allow me to explain: do you agree that men and women should be equal under the law? Do you agree that this means they should have the same rights? Assuming you said yes then how is it possible that a women is allowed to marry people that a man is not, and vice versa? There rights are considered "seperate but equal" but we know that seperate but equal is inherently unequal. This is the exact same issue that was being addressed in Loving vs. Virginia, because people had the same rights to marry within their own race, and therefore were considered to have the same rights.
You keep trying to frame this question in ways where you don't seem ridiculous in wanting to deny marriage to homosexuals, but everytime you come off sounding worse and worse. You are fighting a strawman anyway, because gays would be fine if everything was civil unions and marriage was left up to churches, but in the vast majority of states homosexual unions aren't recognized at all, and in the majority of those states that do recognize same sex unions the rights are not equal to those of marriage (for example if they move to another state, they lose whatever rights were granted by the state where they got the union).
It's like you can't rationally articulate why you don't think gays should get married but you just feel that they shouldn't and therefore are willing to go through this hilarious convoluted logic in order to justify your feelings.
We have had this same argument about a dozen times at this point and hopefully this time you will take away something useful and we won't see anymore of these dumb debates.
Driving is NOT a right. It is a priviledge. You need to register for a license in
order to drive.
Freedom of speech IS a right. You do not need a license to exercise your freedom of speech.
Marriage requires a license. Guess where that falls under. That's right, not a right. It is a priviledge.
Also, when a gay couple get married in a state that allows it and then they move to a state that does not allow it, they do not lose any rights. They only lose marriage benefits. Marriage benefits are not a right.
Welfare benefits are not rights.
So fix your argument (remove all this talk about marriage being a right) and then we can continue from there.
For what is now the 10th time I will link you to Loving v. Virginia. Please do us both a favor and read this so that we can stop wasting time on the whole "marriage isn't a right" benefit.
Also your entire argument about licenses is a fallacy. You give examples of rights that don't require licenses and privileges that do require licenses making the assumption that everything must fall into these two categories. This is called excluding the middle. What if we took the right to own a gun, as guaranteed in the constitution? Gun ownership often requires a license and yet is still a right.
Its blantantly obvious, what im saying!........................................................And no im not high, gave that up,glad i did .I can kinda see things a lot clearer now .
Hmmm, then I guess owning a gun is not a "right", since one usually needs to own a license or a permit to own one...lol...checkmate...
Propaganda or ignorance from a Liberal?
I think a bit of both.
ATF form 4473 is merely a transaction record that indicates a Federally licensed gun-dealer has sold a specific firearm to a person who is not a criminal. For example:
If Joe Cavalry has not been convicted of a felony, Joe Cavalry can buy as many guns as he would like. He needs neither a license to own nor buy a firearm from an FFL dealer. ATF form 4473 is merely a record of a firearm transaction, OTC. The form amounts to little more than a Federal document which serves as a record of registration that a firearm has been sold to a law abiding citizen.
More sheer & utter nonsense. I've already proven that gun registration of all kinds happens at both the state & federal level, and it's totally Constitutional. Checkmate!
Ooops. Turns out owning a gun IS a right after all. You DO NOT need a license to own a gun.
ATF form 4473 is merely a transaction record that indicates a Federally licensed gun-dealer has sold a specific firearm to a person who is not a criminal.
lol, sorry. Nice try MisterGuy. No checkmate after all but thanks for playing ;)
Wrong again. Fully automatic firearms of any kind (including military assault rifles) have been subject to requirements for registration by owners & licensing of dealers since the passage of the National Firearms Act in 1934. Also, AZ, CT, HI, MI, NV, NY, and NC currently all have some form of registration process for guns.
Before you happen to get all uppity about this, all of these laws are totally Constitutional:
Wait.., what? FULLY automatic? I thought we were talking about regular weapons here (single-action and semi-action firearms without a license)? I mean, I'm not allowed to own a nuke either and when the fore fathers were framing the constitution, I don't think they meant for a regular joe at that time to own a cannon.
So no checkmate for you. Especially for trying to pull a fast one on a poor, defenseless, old, man like myself. I bet you even park in handicap parking, and make fun of special needs people, you evil little person.
Jeez, what's the world coming to when you can't trust a lib ;)
I hope you see that your opponent has changed the subject of the debate!
He is now talking about automatic firearms which in deed do require licensing. What he failed to understand is that we can own and buy single-action and semi-action firearms without a license. And if he thinks he is correct that you cannot own a gun without a license then ask him to produce an e-image of this license that doesn't exist. Hell, I own enough guns that any right-minded liberal might call my safe a weapons cache. I simply call it inventory. But, one thing I don't have is a license to own any gun. Why? Because the guns I own do not require a license to buy or own.
"There are currently 37 states here in the U.S. that allow the possession of automatic weapons. The requirements are that you submit an application to BATFE (Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco &, Firearms & Explosives. As part of that application a complete criminal background investigation is done and you must submit a set of current fingerprints as part of the process.(Finger Prints fee's vary from $15-$20 depending on the state of residence)
Once approved, you will be required to pay a one-time fee of $200 for a Federal Tax Stamp per weapon (There are NO, REPEAT NO additional FEE'S,Dealer's Licenses or anything additional required!!)
With the GCA of 1986 (Gun Control Act) Civilians are not allowed to posess fully automatic weapons unless they were manufactured prior to 1986. The weapons manufactured before 1986 are "Grandfathered" meaning they can still be LEGALLY transfered thru a licensed/bonded Class III NFA Weapons Dealer.NO fully automatic weapons made after 1968 are legal for civilians to own or possess.
In addition the permit once issued requires that the permit be with the registered licensed weapon at all times and especially when transported. You must also show proof that the registered weapon is stored in a safe or locked container that meets BATFE guidelines. Issuing the Permit also allows BATFE to make a personal inspection of your residence or storage area once annually.(Usually announced prior by appointment)
Several states have their own state restrictions or laws of ownership for these weapons and a person who is licensed with the weapon is subject to the state laws of any state he visits or may travel through.
If you can find a grandfathered AK-47 or M-16 you can technically purchase it but they are extremely rare and quite expensive......You would be better suited to pick something easier to obtain"
My good friend JD explains it all.
But still, he has changed the subject. Most people prefer not to use automatic weapons, 90% said so in a poll by Waterfowler. So, since most people prefer semi-auto's and single shots, no one really cares about that ban. You might be able to say what you said to Iraqis, Misterguy. If you want to see the form, I posted a link. No lisence required to own a SEMI AUTO or SINGLE SHOT firearm.
Like lawnman said,
His argument is completely fallacious.
I think he is in the 6th grade.
Supporting Evidence:
Form 4473
(www.instapunk.com)
regarding same sex marriage--"Most American adults currently oppose SSM, but the trend is towards increasing acceptance. If current trends continue, most American adults who have an opinion on the topic will be supportive of SSM sometime in the 2010's" -----religioustolerance.org
regarding same sex marriages---"On the other hand...
Ancient Egypt: A tomb of a same sex gay married couple Niankhkhnum and Khnumhotep was discovered in 1964 in the necropolis of Saqqara, Egypt. The tomb dates to the Fifth Dynasty (circa 2,500 BCE), and shows that homosexual marriages date back over 4 millennia!
Roman Catholic Church: A recent book by Yale Historian John Boswell demonstrates that Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches both sanctioned and sanctified unions between partners of the same sex, until modern times. The churches used ceremonies which were very similar to conventional heterosexual ceremonies. 6
Other countries: Same-sex, long-term relationships have been publicly acknowledged in ancient Egypt, Greece and Rome, as well as Australia, Europe, India, Native America in more modern times. 7 However, they have not necessarily been called marriages."------ religioustolerance.org
regarding same sex marriage---"The push for equal marriage is not only part of a worldwide movement to end discrimination based on gender and sexuality, it is also about protecting and supporting people in same-sex relationships and their families.
Equal marriage exists in the following countries:
Belgium
Canada
Netherlands
Norway
South Africa
Spain
Sweden
Within the USA, equal marriage exists in the the states of Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont." ...................................................Rest of World
The following is a list of countries with civil unions. Some countries allow both same-sex and opposite-sex couples to access these schemes, like the Netherlands. Other countries, such as Britain, provide such schemes for same-sex couples only.
Andora
- stable union of pairs
Argentina
- civil union [City of Buenos Aires, Province of Rio Negro, City of Villa Carlos Paz]
You have no real knowledge, just the ability to google something and plagerize. I've read John Boswell, and he gives no real proof, like documents and such.
"The push for equal marriage is not only part of a worldwide movement to end discrimination based on gender and sexuality, it is also about protecting and supporting people in same-sex relationships and their families."-
What families?
The definition from Dictionary.com is "parents and their children, considered as a group, whether dwelling together or not." Since they can not have children naturally, they can't have a family, unless in the case of adoption, of course.
I will say again, leave the site if you have no real knowledge and don't know how to debate.
"I will say again, leave the site if you have no real knowledge and don't know how to debate."--------------------AND I WILL SAY-"ARE YOU A DOUBLE-DIPPING TROLL" ? ---YOU ONLY JOINED UNDER AN HOUR AGO!---SO HOW HAVE YOU SAID THIS TO ME BEFORE?, UNLESS YOU JUST SAW SOMETHING I WROTE AND YOU DECIDED TO CREATE ANOTHER ACCOUNT CAUSE THINGS WERENT GOING YOUR WAY.....ps you sound awfully familiar!
"I will say again, leave the site if you have no real knowledge and don't know how to debate."--------------------I do recall, but only a very few ,actually only two people have said that to me in the whole time ive been here on cd. You and kinda...OH and maybe one other,but certainly no more than four.P.S. you really do sound familiar!
"AND I WILL SAY-"ARE YOU A DOUBLE-DIPPING TROLL" ? ---YOU ONLY JOINED UNDER AN HOUR AGO!---SO HOW HAVE YOU SAID THIS TO ME BEFORE?, UNLESS YOU JUST SAW SOMETHING I WROTE AND YOU DECIDED TO CREATE ANOTHER ACCOUNT CAUSE THINGS WERENT GOING YOUR WAY....."
You really misinterpret things. I was just simply repeating myself. Yes, I haven't heard of this site until I got banned from all the good *chans.
"I do recall, but only a very few ,actually only two people have said that to me in the whole time ive been here on cd."- So? I just did.
We might have met on 4chan, before I got permantley banned for "Excessive Trolling", so yes, I am a troll.
"You really misinterpret things. I was just simply repeating myself" How could you be repeating something if you have never said it to me before ? --eg;ONLY NOW THAT YOU HAVE QUOTED ME QUOTING YOU, HAVE YOU BEEN ABLE TO REPEAT IT! ----------------- "We might have met on 4chan, before I got permantley banned for "Excessive Trolling", "----wouldnt have a clue what your talking about! Ive only been using computers for a month or so before createdebate came into my life.I am only a begginner. ---Back on the subject----------",so yes, I am a troll."----YES I KNOW YOU ARE A TROLL THANKYOU FOR CONFIRMING!
Hmmm yeah righty oh .................................................................................this coming from a self confessed troll....................................Why dont you leave the sight! Since your so perfect, what possible knowledge could you gain from being here? Myself ? I hope, to learn a lot from the worthy people that do exist here. As far as a misunderstanding goes.....nup!,..............i think i nailed the truth behind your identity.Now i wont entertain you any further,your keyboard must be getting sticky!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"i think i nailed the truth behind your identity"- then who am I?
"Why dont you leave the sight! Since your so perfect, what possible knowledge could you gain from being here?"- spell SITE right. I want to learn as much as possible.
"Myself ? I hope, to learn a lot from the worthy people that do exist here." - What? You learn?
"Now i wont entertain you any further,your keyboard must be getting sticky" - I laughed pretty hard.
"spell SITE right."-----As i said im not perfect....."What? You learn?"----Yes. I just learnt to write "site" right...."What? You learn?"---slowly but surely, yes i do....."What? You learn?"----NO, Not if your to be the teacher!
Wow. You see me in every male out there who thinks you're an idiot. It's nice to know you see me in EVERY male out there. Just so you know... if that guy is me then Obama is black...
Now you see, thats where you are wrong. If this was the case, then wouldnt I , be attempting to squash the others ?....Now this is where you are right , all men and women have the potential to be an arsehole........................................................................... What was that again , about obama?.....lol
