Try the political quiz
@9GGS8GD DisagreementsCounter Argument1yr ago

First of all it is unnatural for humans, to take on same sex marriage, let alone gay marriage

this is because, anyone who believes in the bible can attest to the fact that when God created the earth, he made them male and female, showing his arrangement for marriage. God is wiser than all humans put together, and his decision is for our best interest.
Secondly those who practice gay marriage often try to change their appearance to that of a woman, something very detestable and inhumane, also it is just a practice that should not even be done cause of its immoral lifestyle. as for me i see every thing bad in it, and detest does who practice it.

9 Replies

 @9GGZYDFfrom Ontario  disagreed…1yr1Y

same sex mareges should not be stoped and the people the love somone that is the same sex as them have just as right to mary the person that they want to as somone that is maring somone of the same sex. if you think that loving somone and being true to your send is grose and god wouldnt want that then you are the person that god would detest. walking up to somone ans saying that they are grose for being true to themselfs is the same as if somone came up to you and said that you should die because of what you are wereing. it is inhuman and just rude to hate somone just for how they look or how they feel about how thy love.

 @RobinJoshGreenfrom Ontario  commented…1yr1Y

Life, in its infinite diversity, manifests in various forms and shapes. Just like a garden bursting with different flowers, humanity is a beautiful tapestry of unique individuals, each with their own distinct identities, preferences, and ways of expressing love.

Marriage, at its core, is a promise of love, commitment, and mutual respect between two people.

As for the transformation of appearance you mentioned, it's crucial to remember that everyone has the right to express themselves authentically. What might seem inhumane or detestable to one could be a life-affirming expression of selfhood to another.

In the grand scheme of the universe, we are but fleeting sparks of consciousness, inhabiting a tiny planet in the vast cosmic ocean.

 @9GJMPRSfrom Alberta  disagreed…1yr1Y

Not everyone believes in the bible, and why would "god" create gay people if he hates them? People can not help who they fall in love with, so if it happens to be the same sex, it is not harming anyone.

 @9GH6T3HPeople’sfrom Ontario  agreed…1yr1Y

I am aware that your opinions on same-sex marriage are based on personal and religious views. It's critical to acknowledge the wide range of viewpoints on this subject and the importance of courteous discussion in promoting understanding. This reply gives credit to your point of view while offering a counterargument:

I appreciate your freedom of speech, and it's obvious that your viewpoint is shaped by your own values and religious views. It's true that opinions on same-sex marriage can differ greatly among people, frequently due to concerns about religion and culture.

 @9GJMK5Xfrom Ontario  disagreed…1yr1Y

Who people love should not affect anyone it doesn't involve. People should be able to marry who they want no matter gender or sexuality because it is no one elses business. It does not hurt anyone if a man marries another man because that is his choice and no one elses.

 @9GHM639from Ontario  disagreed…1yr1Y

you have a right to religion, but we have the right of freedom of expression. Church and State are separate and should remain separate.

 @9GHBGDHConservativefrom Ontario  disagreed…1yr1Y

Religion does not and should not dictate law. Individual faith is an individual matter, not a matter of public policy.

 @9GH2YNHfrom Ontario  disagreed…1yr1Y

Not everyone believes in a set religion, so it is very wrong to use it as grounds to discriminate against a group of people. Gay marriage also does not directly affect these people either.

 @9GH2HKDNew Democraticfrom British Columbia  disagreed…1yr1Y

Anyone can marry anyone (of age) no matter what gender it's not against the law and is not hurting anyone and is not affecting your belief's.
I support Gay marriage!

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...

About this author

Learn more about the author that submitted this disagreement.

@9GGS8GD

Last activeActivity1 discussionsInfluence1 engagementsEngagement bias100%Audience bias38%Active in
Counter Argument  1 Disagreements  1
PartyUndeclaredLocationLondon, ON

More conversations

Join in on more popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…1mo1MO

Vetting Fiasco: Trump's Defense Pick Caught in Sexual Assault Allegation Storm

CNN commentator and New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman said President-elect Donald Trump’s team missed Pete Hegseth’s payoff to a sexual assault accuser when they vetted him to be secretary of defense.Hegseth is among a raft of cabinet picks facing tough confirmations, and who aren’t being subjected to the customary FBI checks, instead being vetted by private firms. Over the weekend, Hegseth’s attorney dropped the bomb that there was a confidential settlement with a woman who accused the former Fox News host of sexual assault. On Monday night’s edition of CNN’s The Source with Kaitlan Collins, Haberman revealed that her sources in Trump world did not know about the payoff, which was missed in the vetting “because it was a private settlement”HABERMAN: There’s more concern from some people around Trump than there is from Trump himself, about this whole issue. Trump has really dug in, and has told advisers that he is going to stick with Hegseth. Now, we’ll see if anything else emerges.They did do a vet, we are told. This did not show up, this issue, because it was a private settlement, according to the people, who were briefed on what took place. Trump really likes Pete Hegseth. But this did introduce the thing Trump doesn’t like, which is an element of surprise and a negative headline. And so, we will see where this goes.

▲  59 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2mos2MO

Inside the Podcast Revolution: Trump’s Unfiltered Strategy and Harris’s ‘Meltdown’ Risk

Tech billionaire Elon Musk attributed President-elect Trump’s election victory, at least in part, to the lengthy podcast interviews he did during the campaign.In an interview late Tuesday with former Fox News host Tucker Carlson, Musk said Trump’s podcast appearances showed the American public that he was a normal person.“I think it made a big difference that President Trump and soon-to-be Vice President Vance went on lengthy podcasts,” Musk said in the interview.“I think this really makes a difference because people look at, like, Joe Rogan’s podcast, which is great, and Lex Fridman’s and the All-In podcast, and, you know, to a reasonable-minded, smart person — who’s not, like, hardcore one way or the other — they just listen to someone talk for a few hours and that’s how they decide whether, you know, you’re a good person, whether they like you,” he added, according to a clip highlighted by Mediaite.Trump conducted many interviews with new media during his campaign, as well as with legacy news organizations such as Fox News.Last month, he joined Joe Rogan’s podcast for a 3-hour long interview. The celebrity host later endorsed his candidacy.His opponent, Vice President Harris, did not appear on Rogan’s podcast because, according to “The Joe Rogan Experience” host, the Harris campaign only had an hour and required him to travel to her. Rogan said he felt “strongly” that the “best way to do” an interview with the vice president would have been in his studio in Austin, Texas.Musk recalled posting on his social platform X account that “nothing would do more damage” to Harris’s campaign than going on Rogan’s podcast, “because she would run out of non-sequiturs after about 45 minutes.”“You can’t hide for three hours,” Carlson replied.Musk added, “Yeah, like, hour two and three would be a complete melted puddle of nonsense. So it would just be absolute game over. That’s why she didn’t go on.”“But on the other hand, Trump, he’s there, and there’s no, there’s no talking points,” the Tesla CEO continued. “He’s just being a normal person who’s having a conversation, and doing three hours of Rogan, no problem.”

▲  349 replies

Active 13hrs ago

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…7 days7D

Defense Bill Blocks Transgender Care To Minors

The Senate on Wednesday gave final approval to a defense policy bill directing $895 billion toward the Pentagon and other military activities, moving over the objections of some Democrats who opposed a provision added late in the negotiations that would deny coverage for transgender health procedures for minors.The 85-to-14 vote, coming a week after a divided House passed the same measure, cleared the bill for President Biden’s signature.Most Republicans and many Democrats supported the measure, which provides a 14.5 percent pay raise to junior enlisted service members and a 4.5 percent pay raise for all other service members. It also expands access to meal assistance, housing and child care programs that benefit those in uniform.But several Democrats withheld their backing in protest of a provision preventing TRICARE, the military’s health care plan for service members, from covering “medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria that could result in sterilization” for children under 18.The language, which would affect the gender-transitioning children of service members, was recently added to the measure at the insistence of Speaker Mike Johnson, Republican of Louisiana, who refused to bring a defense bill to the House floor without it, according to aides familiar with the negotiations.Twenty-one Democrats, led by Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, proposed an amendment to strip the provision from the bill, but the matter was never brought to a vote. Several of them took to the floor on Tuesday to lodge their objections.“It’s flat-out wrong to put this provision in this bill and take away a service member’s freedom to make that decision for their families,” Ms. Baldwin said, estimating that the provision could negatively affect as many as 6,000 to 7,000 military families.

▲  1913 replies3 agree