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.
Why would you vote against homosexuals being given the right to marry in the US?
You can't use Scripture to argue against it, because the same people who say it goes against God have allowed abortion to be allowed in the same country. SO...
Avoiding the "gay marriage goes against God" argument, why shouldn't they be allowed to marry?
Marriage is seen as a sort of religious or spiritual term for a lot of people, and well, people dislike the idea of that sacred thing being broken. Because they're assholes and don't know how to share.
However, there are certain benefits that married couples can obtained that unwed couples cannot. It's a catch twenty-two, see, because gay people can't get any of these benefits. It's not like they can't just go have a marriage ceremony. They can, and they can even say they're married. It's just not on paper, and that brings a lot of problems. The thing is, this 'sacred' term of marriage, which like I said before, is often seen as a religious thing, is tied into the state. And we're supposed to be fucking separating the church and the state so they don't dick with people.
I agree with this nerd. Since marriage affects taxes and other annoying things, everyone should have the equal special privilege of getting screwed with divorces and taxes.
So, if a "union" were to be given the same rights as a "marriage" than more people would be ok with it? It's because of the name that people have a problem?
Because the definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman......... you would have to change the definition of marriage. If the definition is changed, there would still have to be some word to define the union between one man and one woman.
Most people would/have voted for homosexuals to have the same rights as a marriage(union between a man and a woman) with civil unions but most do not want to change the definition of the word marriage just so homosexuality is now more acceptable in society.
you would have to change the definition of marriage. If the definition is changed, there would still have to be some word to define the union between one man and one woman.
I don't know about everyone else, but I personally don't give a shit about your struggles with the definition of a word, or the emotional stress you'll endure trying to think of new word that's just for men and women who are married (don't hurt yourself). I'm more concerned with ending unjustified government sanctioned bigotry.
Then why not call regular marriage , "marriage" so as not to change it and gay marriage "gay marriage".... but see that is not wanted. You expect others to bend and change but you won't and that is the reason we don't want to change. ;)
When a demographic is being discriminated against, why should they be the ones to compromise? All citizens should have the ability to marry their consenting adult partner.
I am not sure why you think there must be a distinction between different types of marriages in the first place. When you are telling a stranger you are married, do you make sure that you use a term that denotes the race of your partner? The faith? The political party? These are marriages that are also heterogeneous or homogeneous in the particular trait they refer to. The only difference between these traits and gender is that you probably, subjectively, consider gender to be a bigger or more important distinction.
Perhaps (this is a hypothesis, not a personal attack) you are uncomfortable with the idea of saying "I am married." and having it be possible for that to mean "I am married to a man."? Perhaps this is a sentiment shared only a handful of decades ago, when "I am married." was beginning to possibly mean "I am married to a person who is not white."
I cannot be an amphibian, because by definition I am not. No matter how bad I want to be an amphibian, I cannot do it based on the definition.I can put on scuba gear and swim around with them but by definition I can never be an amphibian unless I change the definition of the word.
I cannot be an amphibian, because by definition I am not. No matter how bad I want to be an amphibian, I cannot do it based on the definition.I can put on scuba gear and swim around with them but by definition I can never be an amphibian unless I change the definition of the word.
It is not that complicated.
Yes, it really isn't. As I stated before, activists realize this and change the definition of the word is exactly what they want to do.
Thank you and this shows it is not about RIGHTS because civil unions give the same rights as marriage. It is all about wanting to change the definition, the same rights is not enough for some. My whole point.
You and they are trying to make it that. A crisis is needed to fill that agenda. I will again ask you..... if the same RIGHTS are given to same sex couples(civil unions) as are MARRIED couples but it is only not called MARRIAGE, how is that discrimination??????
Did you even glance at any of those links? Civil unions do not have the same rights and marriages. That is how it is discrimination.
Even if civil unions were granted identical legal standing to marriages, it is still an unnecessary distinction. It is sending the message that marriage must be 'protected' from including same sex unions, meaning that there is something sullying about same sex unions. I can understand how even relatively tolerant people find this hard to swallow, but it seems to be based on little except the desire to adhere to tradition, rather than any tangible benefit.
Ok, I want to be called a woman even though I am man. Women get more benefits in custody battles,alimony,child support so I feel discriminated against and want the definition of a female to include men who want better custody,child support and alimony.
" something sullying about same sex unions" Thanks for proving my point once again, it is all about making same sex unions acceptable in society. It is not about rights or the argument would be to give civil unions the same RIGHTS AS MARRIAGE. Do you see the distinction? IF CIVIL UNIONS WERE GIVEN THE SAME EXACT RIGHTs, you admit you still would not be happy THEREFORE, this is not about rights.
Gays contribute identically to society, therefor they should have identical opportunities as straights. There is no real reason to draw a distinction between gay marriages and straight marriages accept religious reasons or, like I said, pure adherence to tradition.
Marriage would not be harmed or minimized by including gays. The creation of civil unions discourages complete integration of homosexuals, setting them apart as a different type of citizen. If you think this is no big deal, then there is nothing anyone can do to change your mind and, because you are straight, you have the luxury of ignoring this discrimination. Phrasing is important and it influences public opinion, and public opinion influences how homosexuals are treated.
Who stated gays don't contribute to society? Show me that quote.
Your idea of discrimination could be used in that way to change every difference in every definition of words,male-female,ugly-pretty,fat-skinny. They all contribute to society.
There would be no differences in society so that society could not look at differences in any way. There is a difference in gay and hetero couples, that will never change. Discrimination= " the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently"
When it is about rights the American people stand behind you and vote that both unions should have the same rights but whenever you want to change a word based on a false sense of discrimination, that could be done in so many areas it seems childish and proves it is not about the RIGHTS but in your own words "discourages complete integration of homosexuals, setting them apart as a different type of citizen". We are all different. Most groups want names that make them so, African Americans,Italian Americans,Mexican Americans, on and on.
I as a white male American want the same rights as a purple,black,red,green,blue male or female American but I don't want to be called a purple female American.That is not discrimination if I can't be called so. If my rights are not the same then I am behind you. The definition of a word is not the fight, it is the rights that should be worried about.
"Phrasing is important and it influences public opinion, and public opinion influences how homosexuals are treated." So if you got the word marriage for gay couples all homosexuals would be treated fairly?
It is not a perceived discrimination that gay people are not free to marry the consenting adult they wish to marry, while straight people are free to do this. This is reality.
Gays cannot marry the consensual adult of their choosing. Straights can. There is no reason for this except to preserve tradition and legislating religious rules. This is discrimination.
This might be a shock to you but it's not really a comfort to gays that they are allowed to marry people they don't want to marry.
The obvious difference is that it does not at all affect you. Gay people do not have the luxury of ignoring the fact that they are being prevented from marrying their partner of choice, again on no grounds.
Someone cannot marry an animal, are they being discriminated against? Pologimists want to marry more consensual adults,are they being discriminated against?
They have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex.
If anyone chooses to do something either than that, no matter who it may be(no discrimination),it is not marriage. Pretty simple. No one is being denied anything, they may marry.
I would argue that, if all the adults in a polygamist marriage are truly consenting, then that should also be permitted.
What use is a right that someone has no intention of ever using?
The idea that we should continue to oppress an entire demographic of American citizens who have done nothing wrong, for no other reason than a dictionary definition, is pretty pathetic and probably the weakest argument against gay marriage. There is nothing mystical or unchangeable about the definition of a man-made concept and marriage as an institution would not at all be harmed by allowing gays the ability to have one.
Marriage does not have to be between a man and a woman alone, it can be between anyone. That definition was considered in traditional times but face it, we are no longer in the 18th century, we are in the 21 st century. Union between man and woman=heterosexual marriage, union between same gender and same gender=homosexual marriage.
But if marriage is indeed the union of a man and a woman then how come in some places, same sex individuals are allowed to get married? Marriage is the union of two individuals. What do you call same sex marriages then? Why do you think the media uses the terms same sex marriage when describing a marriage between two persons of the same sex or gender?
And in the same way, we define marriage in a way that suits us because we want same sex marriage not to be acceptable in society.
I doubt it would be voted down and down again because i believe (correct me if i am wrong) there are either 5 or 6 states with legal gay marriage in the United States. People who oppose gay marriage are those blinded by their traditional and religious background but who also represent some form of sexual oppression inherent to hypocrisy.
Give the same rights as marriage but by DEFINITION it is not marriage(civil union). If this cannot be accepted there is more to the agenda than just RIGHTS.
Marriage is define in that way because of the traditional impact of society in the 18th century. Face it, we are no longer in 18th century, we are in the 21st century, where you now have a new definition arising out of marriage; same sex marriage.
Ok, face it that we have 20 million illegal immigrants now live in the US and a million more a year try and cross our border. Face it more people do drugs now than ever before. Face it, some men are going to have sex with children. Face it, people have been killing one another for thousands of years. Let's just face it and legalize it all.
Gays have the right to marry just like everyone else, marry someone of the opposite sex or have it be called a civil union.
What does illegal aliens and drugs have to do with having the freedom and right to choose? Illegal Immigration and the use of drugs are crimes but is being a gay a crime here in the 21 st century in the United States. Abortion and being a gay was illegal beack in the 18th century, if it had to do with immigration or drugs, then why is it no longer regarded as being a criminal act? The points you are brining up has nothing to do with freedom of choice.
You said it yourself, GAYS HAVE THE RIGHT TO MARRY. Try being a gay and then understand what it means being a gay. You cant force someone to do what you want them to do in the same way that a gay cant force you to marry someone of the same sex.
Furthermore, if society was perfect back in the 18th century, many acts that were illegal then wouldnt have been legal now and many of the innocent would not have been executed. They were so blinded by traditions that they put ashamed the name of justice and equality which is why we had slavery in the 18th century.
A homosexual can't "marry" as no religion accepts it. A piece of paper stating marriage or individuals deciding to "bless" a union does not change the fact that a marriage has two purposes. To reproduce within wedlock and increase the congregation of the faithful - neither of which a homosexual can do.
1. You can get legally married without dragging a religion into it
2. If gay marriages were legal, what is stopping the formation of a sect of Christianity that condones gay marriage? Unless I am mistaken, Red Letter Christians already accept gay marriage because Jesus never said anything against it.
3. Gay people raise kids, too. Many of them have biological children from previous relationships.
So...like I said, if we are forgetting the "God" argument, then we should allow it because the reason that we wouldn't legalize it in the 18th century was that it would go against God and the Bible.
Therefore it should be allowed. All this splitting hairs about the definition of marriage is a disguise for banning something just because it makes people uncomfortable to think about.
