Debate #2: Give a reason (By FatPig MaleGold MedalGold TrophySuper StarDiamondGold Crown 5 years ago)

image
FatPig says Debate: Gay Marriage

Votes by gender

Guys
68 votes
70.6%
29.4%
Girls
29 votes
79.3%
20.7%
Unknowns
1,095 votes
87.58%
12.42

Votes by country map view

United States
598 votes
85%
15
United Kingdom
182 votes
90%
10
Australia
61 votes
82%
18%
Canada
60 votes
92%
8
Germany
21 votes
86%
14
Netherlands
18 votes
100%
Greece
14 votes
86%
14
Ireland
14 votes
86%
14
Sweden
13 votes
92%
8
South Africa
12 votes
100%
Portugal
9 votes
100%
Spain
8 votes
100%
Italy
7 votes
86%
14
Unknown
7 votes
57%
43%
Indonesia
7 votes
100%
Mexico
7 votes
100%
Belgium
7 votes
100%
New Zealand
6 votes
83%
17%
Poland
6 votes
50%
50%
India
6 votes
100%
France
6 votes
67%
33%
Brazil
6 votes
100%
Philippines
6 votes
100%
Serbia
6 votes
83%
17%
Finland
5 votes
80%
20%
United Arab Emirates
5 votes
40%
60%
Romania
5 votes
80%
20%
Israel
4 votes
100%
Malaysia
4 votes
50%
50%
Europe
4 votes
75%
25%
Singapore
4 votes
100%
Switzerland
3 votes
100%
Lebanon
3 votes
100%
Colombia
3 votes
100%
Austria
3 votes
100%
Croatia
3 votes
100%
Nepal
2 votes
100%
Saudi Arabia
2 votes
50%
50%
Albania
2 votes
100%
Republic of Lithuania
2 votes
100%
Cyprus
2 votes
50%
50%
Czechia
2 votes
100%
Japan
2 votes
100%
Bulgaria
2 votes
100%
Panama
2 votes
50%
50%
Kuwait
2 votes
100%
Turkey
2 votes
100%
Argentina
2 votes
100%
El Salvador
1 vote
100%
Egypt
1 vote
100%
Russia
1 vote
100%
Guyana
1 vote
100%
Republic of Korea
1 vote
100%
Jamaica
1 vote
100%
Morocco
1 vote
100%
Chile
1 vote
100%
Hungary
1 vote
100%
Georgia
1 vote
100%
Ecuador
1 vote
100%
Norway
1 vote
100%
Gibraltar
1 vote
100%
Belize
1 vote
100%
Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan
1 vote
100%
Bahrain
1 vote
100%
Vietnam
1 vote
100%
Latvia
1 vote
100%
Ukraine
1 vote
100%
China
1 vote
100%
Czech Republic
1 vote
100%
Bangladesh
1 vote
100%
Venezuela
1 vote
100%
Syria
1 vote
100%
Bosnia and Herzegovina
1 vote
100%
Pakistan
1 vote
100%
Slovakia
1 vote
100%
Trinidad and Tobago
1 vote
100%
Denmark
1 vote
100%
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +11
    Its not natural there is a reason why two men/woman can't have children together keep it natural and marry of the opposite gender #straight!!!!!
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +19
    no-ones really getting hurt, and people should be allowed to get married as long as they're in love and are both consenting adults
  • image
    1 month ago
    ico
    guest from North Carolina, United States
    Nooooo, I thought this one was good until I saw the votes!
  • image
    3 months ago
    ico
    guest from Hawaii, United States
    They are helping to stop overpopulation!!!!
  • image
    5 months ago
    ico
    guest from New South Wales, Australia
    You live who you love, I’m bi
  • image
    7 months ago
    ico
    guest from Hesse, Germany
    Love is love. Nobody can change. They do not harm anybody.
  • image
    10 months ago
    ico
    guest from Western Australia, Australia
    The day I see a logical, cogent reasoning against same sex marriage is the day I will not support it.
  • image
    1 year ago
    ico
    guest from Derby, United Kingdom
    Wrong one
  • image
    1 year ago
    ico
    guest from Missouri, United States
    Love who you love, no deserves to take that from you. We all start out a little different. As there are many different religions(I'm an athiest), there are many preferences to a partner. If you don't like others preferences then so be it, but people still have the right to love who ever, regardless of gender(as long as both are consenting adults). Why should they not be able to marry but straight couples can? It just sounds immoral and cruel to others while to the idiots of the world it sounds like the only option to keep there sanity in check. Why should you care, it's not effecting you on a physical level or causing any harm besides letting others know that they are entitled to love whoever. Also, to people asking'Oh then how will they have children if the're gay?' Have any of you heard of this GREAT thing called ADOPTING cause it's what some if not most gay couples do if they want a child. I, personally, am straight but I still support the LGBT community and agree that they are allowed to be in love with whomever they please. Oh and if 'God' did exist he would have saved my dog's newborn pup from death, isn't that what miracles are, 'God' saving sh*t? I think not, so say what you will but that bullcr*p isn't going to fool me.
  • image
    1 year ago
    ico
    guest from Missouri, United States
    Love what you love, no ones minds are exactly the same. We all start out a little differently. As there are many different religions(I'm an athiest), there are different preferences to a partner. If you don't like others preferences then so be it, but people still have the right to love who they love, regardless of gender(as long as both are consenting adults). Why should you care, it's not effecting you on a physical level or causing you any harm besides letting others know that they are entitled to love whoever they please. Also, have any of you heard of this great thing called ADOPTING cause it's what some or most gay couples do if they want a child. I personally am straight, but I still support the LGBT community and agree that they are allowed to be in love with whoever. Oh and if 'God' was real he would have saved my dog's newborn pup from dying, isn't that what miracles are for, God saving things? I think not, so say what you will but that bull crap isn't going to fool me.
  • image
    1 year ago
    ico
    guest from New York, United States
    Picked the Wrong thing but what I want to know is why people hate love so much “oh it’s unnatural duhr duhr duhr” homosexuality is found in ove 150 different species homophobia is only in one. What’s unnatural now hmm
  • image
    1 year ago
    ico
    guest from England, United Kingdom
    Love is love who ever you're attracted to
  • image
    1 year ago
    ico
    guest from Texas, United States
    Because humans are terrible anyway, and to slow down the rate of our population growth would be a good thing.
  • image
    1 year ago
    ico
    guest from Tennessee, United States
    It's 2017 people should be able to love whoever they want
  • image
    2 years ago
    ico
    guest from Manchester, United Kingdom
    LOVE JS LOVE
  • image
    2 years ago
    ico
    Humans should have freedom
  • image
    2 years ago
    ico
    guest from The Scottish Borders, United Kingdom
    I ment 2 click A I am gay and lgbtq people r still just people
  • image
    2 years ago
    ico
    guest from New South Wales, Australia
    Im an oficial debater so This could take some time...
  • image
    2 years ago
    ico
    guest from Florida, United States
    The world is over populated
  • image
    2 years ago
    ico
    Marriage should be consenting adults who love each other
  • image
    2 years ago
    ico
    guest from Cheshire, United Kingdom
    Who cares about same sex relationships, I've been in one and it was one of the best I have had. Yes I'm bi. #LoveBeforeGender
  • image
    2 years ago
    ico
    guest from Kansas, United States
    Hey Christian's kill yourselves and see if god is real you FU**ING PR*CKS!
  • image
    3 years ago
    ico
    guest from Ontario, Canada
    being gay is actually a natural thing
  • image
    3 years ago
    ico
    guest from Connecticut, United States
    if two people love each other they should be togther.
  • image
    3 years ago
    ico
    guest from North Carolina, United States
    People should follow who they want. Not be kept because of the law. And, I am gay - I want to be able to get married!
  • image
    3 years ago
    ico
    guest from Pennsylvania, United States
    For the record, gay marriage is now legal in America. Therefore, everyone who said it would never happen has been proven wrong, and should stop being bigots about the topic. Thanks to everyone for their debates, but the matter is settled now.
  • image
    4 years ago
    ico
    guest from Colorado, United States
    Besides the obvious reasons of equality, it could help slow population growth, if more couples are biologically unable to have children...
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    guest from Brazil
    Cause ain't nobody business
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +2
    guest from Indiana, United States
    ugg gays r nasty
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +6
    Ugg, eating meat is nasty. Ugg, putting ketchup on eggs is nasty. Ugg, fisting is nasty. Ugg, homophobes are nasty. Yet all these things are legal...
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +3
    Gareth_Bale11 MaleGold MedalGold TrophySuper Star from Maryland, United States
    If you wants kids to miss a mom or dad its on you
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +2
    TurnToPage394 FemaleGold MedalSuper Star from Coventry, United Kingdom
    What about single-parent families? Are they terrible too?
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    They didn't have a choice to prevent it. Well, not as much as homosexuality.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +2
    guest from the United States
    1) a single parent by it's own definition not married. 2) Homosexuals don't pervert marriage or children. Just because someone is gay doesn't make them any more likely to have sex if front of or with children.
  • image
    4 years ago
    ico
    guest from Kentucky, United States
    Precisely!
  • image
    3 years ago
    ico
    guest from Missouri, United States
    Single parent families that are due to the fact of divorce or decision to leave the other because it was pre-marital sex had a very easy choice, stay with their child and spouse or leave the child with a single parent. Saying they didn't have a choice might be the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +3
    People only adopt kids who don't already have parents.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +3
    Why the f*ck not. It doesn't affect me
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +4
    It's someone else's life and it doesn't hurt anyone. Who the hell am I to say what someone can and can't do?
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +3
    Cause there's people in this world who don't want their kids seeing that crap..
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +2
    Finally, someone understands!
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +4
    Actually, you'll see "that crap" whether it's recognized by law or not, because people have freedom of association.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +3
    Sure they have the freedom of act. But homosexuality will never be fully accepted so why don't you and all the gay supporters accept THAT and maybe we can come to terms somewhat.. I ALSO have the freedom to teach my kids how ignorant and stupid homosexuality is and there's nothing you or anyone can do about it. Keep to yourselves is all we say. You push it on people and you're bound to get a war.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +2
    Preach it, bro.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +5
    It was once unfathomable that Christianity would be accepted by society. A few hundred years later, it was the official religion of the Roman empire. You cannot tell me what will "never" happen, especially considering the rate at which support for marriage equality is growing. You have the freedom to lie to your children, but society, which is becoming more progressive every day, is also free to treat your views as backwards, uncivilized bigotry, as we do with racism and any other view which has been left behind by the march of progress. You say "keep it to yourselves" but seem to be unaware that you are the one depriving people of the right to make a contract. Whether other people choose to make a contract or not does not affect you in any way. Your only objection is that your children might "see it". However, it is not the place of the law to determine what other people see; you yourself, indirectly, have stated this by asserting that you have a right to teach your children what you wish. If the state can justify suppressing free association on such a basis, then you have no such right; the state, according to that logic, would be justified in regulating what you teach your children, because "some people don't want kids to hear that crap".
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +3
    Ok that paragraph was a whole bunch of nothingness..My point is racism will never be accepted along with homosexuality. This I promise you. There will always be people who find it wrong and disturbing because there is ALWAYS going to be people who stand for natural ways of life. Man+Woman=Baby. Not man and man or woman and woman.. So just let it be. You can't force anything upon anyone really. You're free to speak your mind about the topic and so am I..Let's be adults and agree to disagree. I think homosexuality is wrong..I don't hate the people personally. Just that choice they make.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +6
    And he accuses MY post of being "nothingness"? Nothing you said advanced any argument; I don't "agree to disagree" in debate threads. You have no idea what society will be like 100 years from now, so stop making indefensible assertions. Whether homosexuality is "wrong" is completely irrelevant to whether marriage should be legal because marriage is not some kind of sex-license; it's a contract exchanging legal rights. But even discarding that, you haven't presented any evidence for your assertions that "homosexuality is wrong" or that it isn't a "natural way of life;" until you do, it's worthless. You are free to say what you like, however, using that as a defense is nothing but a concession that the most compelling thing about your argument is that it isn't literally illegal to express.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +1
    How the hell can you prove something regarding a topic that is complete perspective you idiot? You can't. Just like you can't give proof of why homosexual marriage SHOULD be allowed so quit trying to sound smart and stop replying. I'm sick of reading the same messages from you. Homosexuality is wrong. Do something about it? That's what I thought..
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +4
    No, morality has nothing to do with perspective and everything to do with well-being. Morality is concerned with the well-being of society as a whole. Think in terms of health; some things are objectively good for you, and others are objectively bad. If a culture thinks that drinking battery acid is healthy; they're wrong. If someone thinks that exercise is unhealthy, they're wrong. To be taken seriously, they would need to provide evidence that exercise has ill effects. The same is true of morality; if someone thinks that homosexuality is wrong, they must provide evidence that it has ill effects on society. If morality is subjective, then it has no place in law, because the law is objective. And, actually, I can prove why marriage, gay or straight, should be legal: marriage bestows the following rights to people: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States#Rights_and_benefits, and people benefit from having these rights. This makes it a socially optimal contract; it improves the quality of life for some people, and has no effect on anyone else. If you wish to make something illegal, or even correctly assert that it is immoral, you must show that it has negative effects. I'm not "trying to sound smart"; I'm subjecting your position to necessary scrutiny for any legal position.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    You do realize you can give all the proof you want of why you THINK it's a good idea but facts are facts and there ARE people living in this world who (Like I said) Are not for that..They don't want their kids to see that and it would really just be best if you Gay supporters were understanding to that. If you continue to push it will backfire. Look at christians. Gays and Gay supporters are practically becoming the new bible beaters and it makes me laugh how most gay people say they take the "Peaceful" approach to being accepted yet when someone disagrees with those beliefs they become the most hateful people I've ever seen.. I'll continue to rebel against homosexuality and gay marriage. For your information gay marriage is STILL illegal in the state I live in so I'm happy about that. It's all opinion man, Whether you think so or not..
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +5
    I supported my opinion with reasoning. You haven't; that's why I can be confident that mine is correct. You say "some people don't want to see that," but, as I've already explained, marriage is a contract; it isn't something you can see in the first place. If you mean "I don't want to see two men getting married" then they do that without legal recognition already; my church has had wedding ceremonies for gay couples for over 20 years now; that's perfectly legal already, it just doesn't involve the legal paperwork: what you see will be exactly the same. More importantly, even if it did change, that's not a relevant point in law; you have to demonstrate how "seeing it" would harm you or your children, and of course, you won't, because it's impossible to do. Your position is completely untenable, and I don't care whether you "rebel," (whatever that means) or not; without a reason to forbid others from making a contract, people won't stand for irrational laws, no, not even in Texas, because Texas uses the same constitution as the rest of us, the one that grants people equal protection under the law.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    But it's still Illegal you moron and it probably will remain that way cause Texas rocks hahaha. And you're an idiot for thinking that it's all the same if it's legalized. If it's legal it becomes more common thus having gay people roam around thinking it's ok to display that and that's not going to happen without being questioned. You haven't provided any form of proof or reasoning all you've shown is why YOU think it's a good idea idiot and like I've said a million times already. It's always gonna be perspective.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +4
    You can categorically reject proof, but that doesn't make your position any stronger. Unless you can refute the statement that "marriage bestows rights, marital rights improve joint quality of life, quality of life is the concern of the government" then my position stands on its own merits, not because of this mystical "perspective" nonsense, which, of course, doesn't allow us to reach any conclusions about anything. I don't understand why you keep bringing up the law in your state, because its quite irrelevant in a discussion concerning what the law should be. Here's a hint: if your strongest argument is "it might cause people to think differently," you might want to rethink your position, because the government isn't in the business of controlling people's thoughts. And, incidentally, "roaming around thinking it's ok to display" what? Display affection? They're going to do that regardless of whether they can sign a bunch of papers or not; it's perfectly legal regardless. Equally importantly, it doesn't harm you in any way; applying this reasoning to anything else would get you laughed at. I think it's dumb to wear baggy shorts, but I'm not planning on introducing legislation to reduce the number of people wearing them, because I recognize that it isn't my business, just as this isn't any of yours. Calling someone names doesn't make you look more intelligent.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    So basically your a coward and don't speak your real mind in real life. Hmmm.. Yea, I'm hearing everything you're saying but it's complete bull shi t...It IS perspective and no matter your BELIEF that it makes life better (What a joke) There will always be people who find it wrong. We're not going anywhere. :) Deal with it..
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +4
    I give my opinion in real life... I just don't make laws banning things unless I can show that they harm people. I gave proof for my position; these rights increase living utility, increasing quality of life: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States#Rights_and_benefits,. If you want to prove me wrong, you must explain how these rights are harmful to you or anyone else. Explain why your "perspective" is correct, and show me what, from your perspective, is harmful. If you can't do that, then I don't care what you think is "wrong" or not.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    You only see in the "Now". Sure it seems harmless enough to make it legal but due to people like me it's going to cause problems down the road. It will backfire eventually and people are going to start questioning what really should be legal and not legal. Don't come to Texas cause you won't be able to marry the same gender:D haha
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +4
    Due to people like you? Well, if that's the case, then the government should be going after people like you, not people who wish to make a contract peacefully and civilly.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    Nah, You people are just idiots and have to feel accepting of stupid things like homosexuality to make yourself feel like you're doing right but you're not. Instead of throwing parades like a bunch of morons we could be using that time and effort to actually BENEFIT everyday society. You ignorant people are parasites and you're too caught up in trying to point fingers at who's right and wrong to even realize it. Gays will never be fully accepted I PROMISE you haha. Learn to handle the truth and stop being so childish.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +5
    You don't have any evidence for your position, so instead you proceed to call me names for a paragraph and sign out. Then you call me childish. Funny.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    Evidence of what you moron?XD lmao. You've given no evidence either. Just a wikipedia page of rights and crap Lmao..So stupid..
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +2
    Yes: rights which improve quality of life. That is necessarily a good thing, unless it harms the quality of life for others. You must provide evidence either proving that this contract doesn't (and, by extension, CANNOT) improve quality of life or that it harms other people. You've been avoiding this indefinitely.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    Because unlike you I'm smart enough to see that there is no possible way to provide proof of a subjective topic like this XD You just think what you want, It's illegal here so I'm happy and people here vote on it so it will remain that way.:)
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +2
    Law is not subjective. If it were, we wouldn't be able to condemn positions like Nazism; after all, that's their opinion, and who are we to question it? Law has an objective purpose: to improve the well-being of the populous. Well-being might be subjective, but allowing people to choose whatever increases their own well-being, without infringing that of others, by definition cannot lesson it. If you don't think that law has any objective purpose, might I ask why you chose to post here at all? If you can't give any objective reasons, why did you answer the question beginning with "Give a reason"? Even putting aside THAT, how do you develop your opinions in the first place? If you're presented with an issue you've never seen before, how do you make a judgement about which side is correct? Do you flip a coin? Do you just go with what your friends think? Do you have any standard at all?
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +2
    "You have the freedom to lie to your children" Saying that homosexuality is gross is not lying...
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +2
    But that wasn't what he said. He said that he would teach (implying factual nature) that homosexuality is "ignorant," an indefensible assertion.
  • image
    4 years ago
    ico
    guest from Kentucky, United States
    I also have the freedom to tell you you're wrong. Hitler told all his followers how ignorant and bad the Jews were so goodluck with that. And yes I am comparing what you just said to Hitler.
  • image
    3 years ago
    ico
    guest from Missouri, United States
    You kind of proved how retarded you are by saying you think it would stay illegal in Texas because "Texas is awesome," and no it is legal in the entire United States. Clearly people who are educated in politics thought you're opinion was dumb, as it is, and decided what is best for the country was to allow gay marriage. So keep being ignorant because eventually your disgusting kind will die off since it is by far the unpopular opinion these days. If you want a "war" between those who support gays and those who don't, statistics show that war would be about a 9:1 ratio of people in favor of the gay supporters. Long story short, you would get destroyed. End of discussion.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    I don't care
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +3
    TurnToPage394 FemaleGold MedalSuper Star from Coventry, United Kingdom
    I don't think I've ever heard a logical argument against gay marriage.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +1
    guest from the United States
    That is because there is no logical argument against it. The only people who argue against it are ignorant, because they choose to make and accept statements is true without any regard to evidence or facts, and choose to disregard any actual evidence or facts that are true when that evidence and facts defy their illogical belief.
  • image
    4 years ago
    ico
    Well till proven ( not by wikipedia) ( or your opinion) that homesexuality is a natural thing i think its a choice...i think people are born with attractions to there own gender but its there choice to act upon them...its not something they cant stop...i believe at most people are equally attracted to both genders...being homosexual damages are society they make the choice to not replenish the human population if everyone made the selfish choice homosexuals made the human race would die
  • image
    4 years ago
    ico
    TurnToPage394 FemaleGold MedalSuper Star from St. Helens, United Kingdom
    I'm not gonna get into a debate but that's laughably ignorant. Lots of straight people choose not to replenish the human population too. And, similarly to the transexual thing, I highly doubt gay people would actually choose to go through all that hate (I'm talking places where they get shunned, beaten and even killed for being gay). Also, as a bisexual, I can tell you that I did not choose to be bisexual.
  • image
    4 years ago
    ico
    In america gay people bisexual people are vey much loved not hated
  • image
    4 years ago
    ico
    TurnToPage394 FemaleGold MedalSuper Star from St. Helens, United Kingdom
    You think so? This site alone has loads of homophobes on it. And I wasn't just talking about America, it isn't the only country in the world you know. Also, just to clarify, you're saying that if you wanted to you could choose to fall in love with a man? and you could choose to love having gay sex?
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +3
    How to Start a Flame War 101.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    guest from Georgia, United States
    the way i see it, gays dont bother me. idc be happy
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    Doesn't really matter who you marry, just as long as you are happy.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +2
    guest from West Lothian, United Kingdom
    I used to say yeah to gay marriage but then I found a passage in the Bible that's denys it
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    TurnToPage394 FemaleGold MedalSuper Star from Coventry, United Kingdom
    I might be wrong, but I don't think any of the passages actually explicitly mention marriage. If you're talking about the leviticus one, it only says that man shouldn't lie with another man the way he does with a woman, and that could be interpreted in different ways. Also, the bible says we shouldn't wear clothing of two types of material and that people shouldn't get divorced. Do you follow those rules too?
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +1
    A reason I dont give a damn- because who the f*ck wants to get married anyways? It's a completely artificial institution, and if you truly love each other you shouldnt need some legal contract to prove it.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    I realize that it is deeply ingrained in our social and legal system. Perhaps it would be wiser to begin to remedy that than to encourage it further. And I still don't see how it is worth it to some people, despite any advantages.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    What exactly is the reason for "remedying" any of these? They facilitate living as a group, which is something that many people wish to do. Regardless of whether you think doing so is a good idea, it's simple freedom of association. The contract isn't a means of validation, it's one of facilitation.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +1
    Aha, but it is a means of validation! Regardless, I believe that we should get the government out of people's lives as much as possible. Doing otherwise hurts many and helps no one.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    Assertions require evidence. I don't really care about your beliefs about government until you support them. More importantly, even in your no-government fantasy land, private transactions, such as insurance, often make use of spousal arrangements; no company has time to make judgements on a case-by-case basis, thus, it is useful to have a universal standard. And also, assertions require evidence.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +1
    wendyf FemaleBronze MedalBlue Star from Virginia, United States
    We live in a society where we should be able to marry whomever we want. Doesn't matter what sex they are. It's their choice they're not hurting anyone. I don't get how that affects the lives of those that oppose? They're not marrying you so why do you care?
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +4
    guest from Michigan, United States
    God intended for man and women not man and man the first people that were created were man and women not man and man hello!
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +2
    Assertions require evidence.
  • image
    3 years ago
    ico
    guest from Missouri, United States
    Even Christian scholars these days say the Genesis story probably wasn't true and should be taken for its symbolism, not factuality. So therefore, no, man and women were not both made first.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +1
    guest from Pennsylvania, United States
    Discriminating a group of people that can't change themselves for you, won't be harmed by getting married, don't harm you in any way, and will not cause their children to be different from other kids is stupid, oppressive, and unfair.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +1
    I wont support gay rights since it isnt the ideal way of life, but I wont give a reason agaisnt it because there is no point in continuing a circle of hate
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +4
    Alex MaleGold MedalGold TrophySuper Star from Arizona, United States
    The government should not regulate marriage.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +11
    Its not natural there is a reason why two men/woman can't have children together keep it natural and marry of the opposite gender #straight!!!!!
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +2
    Marriage is a legal contract, not a natural phenomenon. The ability of a company to incorporate is also "not natural," however we allow it because it is beneficial to society. Whether something is "natural," to the extent that such a word has any meaning when applied to society, is irrelevant.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    guest from the United States
    All marriage between straight couples does not lead to having children. Many straight people are infernal or choose not to have children but they still allowed to get married. Therefore not being able to biologically have children without the use of modern science is not excuse to deny others the same rights and privileges as others have to a committed relationship.
  • image
    4 years ago
    ico
    guest from Western Australia, Australia
    Homosexuality occurs in nature all the time... Look at dogs they'll hump anything. By that logic therefore homophobia isn't natural as no other species acts in such a manner...
  • image
    3 years ago
    ico
    all of my respect for you went to mars and is never coming back.
  • image
    3 years ago
    ico
    guest from Missouri, United States
    Marriage legally has nothing to do with the ability to reproduce. If that were the case, then infertile women should not be able to get married because not being able to reproduce is apparently unnatural.
  • image
    3 years ago
    ico
    lops132 Bronze Medal from Illinois, United States
    he hem, ever heard of adoption?
  • image
    2 years ago
    ico
    It is found in nature. And it is actually possible to combine a female's egg with another one
  • image
    2 years ago
    ico
    guest from Arizona, United States
    What about infertile men and women, should they not be allowed to get married? Or what about people who take birth control?
  • image
    10 months ago
    ico
    guest from Western Australia, Australia
    Sir, what is so "natural" about a ceremony where two people exchange rings, say vows and have a guy at the front rant for 10 years in front of family, friends, etc, regardless of the genders of the participants in such a ritual?
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +4
    guest from Liverpool, United Kingdom
    Because love is love. End of. *bows, collects applause and leaves*
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +2
    People who say that equality means that anyone can marry anyone regardless of gender and that its wrong to deny a gay person this right because there feelings are natural are saying that marriage is only about sexual attraction.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +1
    That isn't an argument as to why gay marriage should not be legal. It's a rebuttal of a faulty argument. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy. The purpose of marriage, as far as the law is concerned, is to provide people with the following rights in order to facilitate cooperative living: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States#Rights_and_benefits.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +1
    blakeb2 MaleGold MedalGold TrophySuper StarDiamond from California, United States
    I know that, you seemed to miss my point. Those laws are having to be changed in order to accomadate same sex couples. Same sex couples and there supporters are saying that they need to be changed because you are being unfair to them by excluding them from marriage laws. These people are by effect saying that because a man can be sexually attracted to a man that they should be able to marry. The statement was not regarding what the laws are for, it was regarding the peoples motives for changing them
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +1
    "These people are by effect saying that because a man can be sexually attracted to a man that they should be able to marry." No, sexual attraction has nothing to do with marriage as a legal contract. Marriage is a contract in which people arrange such that they have a joint legal status. The genders of the persons in question are not relevant to any of the conditions of this contract, and thus, because of an adult's freedom of association, they have the right to make this contract with any other consenting adult. Denying once group freedom of association is not equality under the law, and is thus unconstitutional. This is why the law is being changed; it's nothing to do with whatever you're talking about.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    I know that marriage is a contract between people. originally that contract was only legally allowed between a man and a woman. According to what you are saying someone should just marry there roommate for the legal conveniences and then divorce when one needs to move out. With this mindset marriage it just a law to exploit for financial purposes.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +1
    That's correct; marriage, as a legal contract, is just another law. You can assign whatever sentimental value to it that you like, however, your emotions concerning that contract are not relevant to its legality. If you or your religion choose not to recognize a marriage, than that's your business, however, the state recognizes contracts based on their social utility.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    blakeb2 MaleGold MedalGold TrophySuper StarDiamond from California, United States
    But your forgetting that marriage has been around since before american laws. So while it is a contract it is also more then that.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +1
    It might be more than that to you, but it isn't to the law. Whatever qualities marriage has outside of law, by definition, are not relevant when discussing its legality. If your reason isn't to do with marriage's legal aspect, then it simply doesn't matter in a legal discussion.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    blakeb2 MaleGold MedalGold TrophySuper StarDiamond from California, United States
    I'm not saying that a living contract between two individuals should not be allowed. I'm going on a more philosophical level here and questioning the motives of those who want it legalized. Because I highly doubt that anyone who is married(gay or not) would say it is nothing but a legal contract. Yes the act if marriage legally is simply a contract but the effect it has is farther reaching. Much like how legalizing alcohol does not have a negative effect but the people driving drunk do. You can't just look at what the law does legally and say that's the only thing to take into account. You must also look at the effects of that.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +2
    People can choose to assign whatever significance they wish to a document. There are certain things that we have to vote on; this isn't one of them. Everyone can decide for themselves where to go to lunch, everyone can choose their own favourite song, and everyone can choose what a marriage means to them. The law is only concerned with shared social issues, things which affect everyone. Personal interpretation of a ceremonial gesture isn't in the legal domain. You seem to acknowledge this, but then you go back to treating it as a shared social issue. What effects are you referring to? For that matter, what "motives" are you referring to? You say you have to "look at them," but from the beginning you've avoided doing so, in favour of referencing something unstated.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    I'm saying that by people stating equality as the reason that homosexual marriage should be legalized, they are essentially sating marriage is about sexual attraction which I believe me and you would both agree it is not. If it is purely for legal purposes why not just find some random woman to marry for the legal benefits and live with your partner? I'm saying that people tend to pop there own bubble with an argument of equality and legality which you have not referenced, This argument is not against you. you have the right to look at it as a legal document only and have only referenced that in this way it makes sense that gender should not be involved. Others however try to talk about equality and it being unfair to homosexuals and then try to use your argument. I'm saying the two cannot work together, they require looking at marriage in different ways.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    I advocate gay marriage for equality among other reasons, but that equality is to do with contracts: if one group can sign a contract granting joint rights, it is not equal protection under the law to prohibit this contract among another group; I assumed that others sharing this opinion had the same reason. I don't see how the argument from equal rights asserts anything about sexual attraction, nor have I ever met anyone supporting this who thought it did. We don't marry people arbitrarily because sharing property, among other things, with a random person is not advisable.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    blakeb2 MaleGold MedalGold TrophySuper StarDiamond from California, United States
    But you say it is unfair to expect them to marry a woman because they are sexually attracted to men correct?
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    No. Marriage isn't something that's done by one person; marriage creates a legal union from a group expressing desire for it. Granting this union to certain groups but not others is not equal protection under the law.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    blakeb2 MaleGold MedalGold TrophySuper StarDiamond from California, United States
    But the thing is marriage was not legal unuion for a group it was legal union for a man and a woman. It was never inferred by the law that it was meant for any group, just a group of a man and a woman. While that law is being changed in some places you can not say that the old law set up ever had any intention of this marriage contract being for any group aside from one man and one woman. By choosing to live life with another man a homosexual knowingly gave up his ability to make one of those contracts with his partner.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +2
    This is easy. I can sum my whole reasoning into one word: equality.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    blakeb2 MaleGold MedalGold TrophySuper StarDiamond from California, United States
    When you bring up equality you bring it down to nothing but a matter of sexual attraction,
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    Equality for all. Whether it be sexual orientation or race or sex. Doesn't matter who you are if someone else is allowed to do it than so should you.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    blakeb2 MaleGold MedalGold TrophySuper StarDiamond from California, United States
    So someone should be allowed to marry an animal or a family member? A line needs to be drawn somewhere
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    No. The animal can't give proper consent and beastieality is animal abuse. Incest is wrong because when two people mate who have the same genes than the child is vulnerable to developing a whole range of genetic issues such as haemophilia.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    blakeb2 MaleGold MedalGold TrophySuper StarDiamond from California, United States
    Who said they intended on having children? Gay couples don't plan on having children either. My point is that you have to draws line somewhere and no matter where you do somone is going to be left out
  • image
    3 years ago
    ico
    guest from Missouri, United States
    People can't marry family members because of the health issues it would cause them and others if they decided to reproduce. Animals and humans can't marry because they are not of the same species and again it would cause sever health risks to both parties. If there are two consenting parties that are of the same species and are not related, that is where the congress has decided the line has been drawn. Those lines will never be changed because there are valid reasons to prevent inter-family and intra-species marriages of those sorts happening. There is no valid reason to keep gay people from marrying.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    It's none of my business who gets married and who doesn't. Also, God killed Sodom and Gomorrah because they were greedy assholes, not because they were gay. If you would've actually read the bible, you would've known.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    blakeb2 MaleGold MedalGold TrophySuper StarDiamond from California, United States
    Actually the bible juat says that they were wicked. We never get any specifics. But considering that we know that may were gay and the fact that homosexuality is condemned elsewhere in the bible it is a safe assumption to make that homosexuality was at least a contributing factor.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    Well, in the old testament! Also, in the old testament, eating shellfish is also condemned! Do you really think we should make the old testament law?
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    blakeb2 MaleGold MedalGold TrophySuper StarDiamond from California, United States
    Dude homosexuality is condemned in the new testament. Food laws are specifically spoken against in the NT
  • image
    3 years ago
    ico
    guest from Missouri, United States
    Go back and brush up on your Bible studies, because there is a lot of ideas in the Bible I'm sure you're supporting that are not actually aloud.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    BTW if you're gonna make that a series, may I suggest a "reason why death sentences should/should not be legalized" question?
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    a good idea, that is
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +2
    I don't see why not. I mean as far as I know, children who are raised by gay parents are more open minded than average children... And marriage is just a legalized bond between the two lovers. It won't kill/harm anyone.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    If blacks are allowed to marry, why not gays?
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +2
    WTF! How are these two the same thing? Lol
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    Well people don't think blacks are very equal and people say neither are gays
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    Please don't compare the two. Those are two different things.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    Just did b*tch.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    No sense in arguing with you. You seem pretty ignorant.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    I'm a pretty ignorant guy
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +19
    no-ones really getting hurt, and people should be allowed to get married as long as they're in love and are both consenting adults
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    Exactly what I think.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    no surprises there XD
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +7
    It always denies a child a father or a mother. It offends God. And, it is plain nasty.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +4
    gay marriages don't have to involve children, the absence of a mother or father doesn't necessarily mean that the child can't have that kind of figure in their lives, I don't see how too people getting married can be seen as nasty and just as a piece of advice, try not to bring God into these kinds of things as the argument won't really be taken seriously(I don't mean any offense to your faith, it's just that the arguments involving it aren't all that strong
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    Yeah, you are right about the religion thing.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +2
    Marriage does not deprive anyone of anything: marriage does require children (and, incidentally, adopted children, in the absence of their adoptive parents, would be deprived of two parents, rather than of a theoretical one whose only difference is of gender). How do you know god's opinion and why is it relevant in law? How do you define "nasty" and how is it relevant in law?
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    Their emotions are fake. They may think that they are real, but they aren't. You may think they are real, but they aren't. Being gay is a choice. You can become gay. You are not born with it. Usually something happens in your life that makes you have these "emotions."
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    Hitchens_Razor from Pennsylvania, United States
    That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. //Their emotions are fake, but they aren't, Being gay is a choice, You can become gay, You are not born with it, Usually something happens in your life that makes you have these "emotions"// is rendered null.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    wtf?
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    Hitchens_Razor from Pennsylvania, United States
    A device for dismissing faulty arguments; a claim is only as strong as the evidence given for it. If a claim is given without evidence, then no evidence is required to nullify it.Thus, your statements, because they lacked evidence, were nullified.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    The argument that allows gay marriage has no actual proof either.
  • image
    3 years ago
    ico
    guest from Missouri, United States
    The argument to allow gay marriage is that gay people should not be denied rights that straight people are aloud. That argument doesn't need proof as it is a basic right of life for people to have equal rights.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    Why is that relevant to marriage? Even if we accepted your statements as correct, nothing in your comment pertained to marriage: even if people did choose to be gay, how is that an argument as to the legal status of their unions?
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    There is evidence that shows children raised by homosexuals are more likely to experience gender and sexual disorders. Marriages thrive when spouses specialize in gender-typical roles.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    Hitchens_Razor from Pennsylvania, United States
    That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. //Marriages thrive when spouses specialize in gender-typical roles.// is rendered null. Corollary: evidence must be cited //There is evidence that shows children raised by homosexuals are more likely to experience gender and sexual disorders.// Is rendered null.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    Hitchens_Razor from Pennsylvania, United States
    That source does not contain evidence supporting your claim. //Marriages thrive when spouses specialize in gender-typical roles, children raised by homosexuals are more likely to experience gender and sexual disorders.// is rendered null.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    Did you read all of it? Because it does.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    Hitchens_Razor from Pennsylvania, United States
    Its claims are as follows: Similarly charged objects repel one another, Acid-base reaction occur, Animals are male and female, Animals often mate with animals of a different sex, Hormones can cause people of different genders to be attracted to one another, An egg and a sperm are required to conceive children, Two of the same thing added together yield two of the same thing. What did I miss that supports your claim?
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    Hitchens_Razor from Pennsylvania, United States
    Scientifically gathered evidence requires an adequate control. The data gathered on gay union should have been compared to straight unions with adopted children and in similar economic conditions, but were instead compared to the mean of all straight unions, which is inadequate for scientific validity. Evidence rendered null. //Marriages thrive when spouses specialize in gender-typical roles// remains unsubstantiated.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    And this is relevant why? Of the rights and responsibilities listed here, only a few pertain to children: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States#Rights_and_benefits. And, if your second statement is true, how do you explain that the divorce rate is lower among same-sex unions: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frederick-hertz/divorce-marriage-rates-fo_b_1085024.html? More importantly, in why do marriages need to "thrive" to be legal? People will still enter relationships whether they sign a contract or not; the contract only seeks to facilitate legal arrangements between its constituent members.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    Personally, I just do not want to encourage gay marriage because then more people will come out of the closet, etc. I have one good reason that cannot be denied no matter what anyone says - it is disgusting. I do not want to continue to argue just because you are a nice person and I do not want to wreck our friendship. Plus, I do not really understand your big words. I'm only 15, lol. Nice talking to ya!
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    I'm also fifteen. In any case, neither point is relevant in law. There are plenty of disgusting things which are perfectly legal; you are allowed to put peanut butter on a hot dog.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    I thought you were married? But, peanut butter on a hot dog isn't as gross as two men shoving dicks up their asses. Which one would you rather watch: Gay porn or a film about how to put peanut butter on a hot dog correctly?
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    No, I'm not married. Gay marriage is not synonymous with anal sex: that will be legal whether they can be married or not. As I'm bisexual, I would not find gay porn especially disgusting, apart from the fact that I don't watch porn of any kind.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    TurnToPage394 FemaleGold MedalSuper Star from Coventry, United Kingdom
    "Disgusting" is a pretty subjective word. You might find the thought of two men having sex disgusting, and I'm sure a lot of people do too, but many other people don't think it's disgusting, lots of people actually get turned on by it. Also, quick question, what do you think of lesbian porn?
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    It is disgusting as well. Not as disgusting, but still disgusting.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    TurnToPage394 FemaleGold MedalSuper Star from Coventry, United Kingdom
    I think what you mean is "it is disgusting in my opinion". Which is fine, I can understand that. But that shouldn't mean homosexual people should have any less rights than straight people. I can tell you, my feelings are not "fake". Why would someone fake something that earns them unfair hate and prejudice? It really is a horrible thing to hate someone for their sexuality. It's horrible hearing your own sexuality being described as "nasty" and "disgusting". I'm a good person, I try to respect everyone and not pass judgments too quickly. Don't you think it's unfair to label my sexuality with words like that when I've done nothing wrong?
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    You have not done anything wrong, you just don't know that your emotions are fake, which is a problem. There must have been something in your childhood that caused homosexuality.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    TurnToPage394 FemaleGold MedalSuper Star from Coventry, United Kingdom
    How could you possibly know that MY emotions are fake? How can an emotion even be 'fake' if I'm feeling it? I'll be honest now, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    You think they are real, but they aren't. Obviously you will think that they are real, but that's not the case.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    TurnToPage394 FemaleGold MedalSuper Star from Coventry, United Kingdom
    Where are you even getting this information from?
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    Where are you getting your evidence from?
  • image
    3 years ago
    ico
    guest from Missouri, United States
    You're really dumb. By the same logic of d*cks being shoved in guys butt's being gross, someone could say shoving d*cks up fishy smelling wet holes (vags) is even grosser. Therefore being straight should not be aloud either, because that is also disgusting.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico
    TurnToPage394 FemaleGold MedalSuper Star from Coventry, United Kingdom
    So do single parents also offend god? Many children grow up without seeing their mother or without seeing their father, due to divorce or death etc, and many of them turn out fine. "It's plain nasty"... wow, such well thought out logic. I applaud you.
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +1
    guest from the United States
    My Husband and I are Gay and we have a daughter. Our Daughters Mother who is married to a woman all live in the same home as we do. So our daughter actually has two moms and two dads. Like the saying goes it take a village to raise a child. Straight couples who get divorced and straight people who have sex without getting married denies a child a mother or father not gay marriage.
  • image
    4 years ago
    ico +1
    guest from Kentucky, United States
    How is it nasty, and most gay people grow up knowing they're gay. They are born the way they are, and if God makes us all why should they be looked down upon. It's as if you are trying to make a 'strait' master sexuality when that just doesn't work. You can't switch people's races so why should you be able to switch their sexuality? They are born as a race and, I believe, are born with a certain sexual orientation.
  • image
    3 years ago
    ico
    guest from British Columbia, Canada
    You are a dumb overly religious idiot
  • image
    3 years ago
    ico
    guest from Alberta, Canada
    Actually children with 2 men or 2 women for parents are more likely to be more open to people of different race, religion, and sexual orientation plus god loves all his children and how is it nasty love is love
  • image
    3 years ago
    ico
    guest from Missouri, United States
    So does single parenting and often times divorce, yet those are still legal, so try again.
  • image
    3 years ago
    ico
    lops132 Bronze Medal from Illinois, United States
    what evidence do you have to prove a child needs a mother And a father
  • image
    2 years ago
    ico
    They might not adopt. A lot of families, a parent leaves or dies. And why do they need both? They're lucky to have any. That is enforcing yur religion onto others. And where is proof it offends God? And HOW is it nasty?
  • image
    5 years ago
    ico +4
    Freedom of Marriage i guess