The Instigator
policydebategod2
Pro (for)
Winning
51 Points
The Contender
U.S_Patriot
Con (against)
Losing
27 Points

Anti gay rights laws are the new jim crow and anti jew laws. And no more justified.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/30/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,596 times Debate No: 1180
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (90)
Votes (26)

 

policydebategod2

Pro

Anti gay laws include marriage and military laws. People express their hate toward them verbally and physically. Gays dont dare enter politics. People use the Bible to justify anti-homosexual views.
U.S_Patriot

Con

Your point that anti-gay rights laws actually exist are delusional. However, anti-gay marriage laws do exist. And I will attempt to show why, and why anti-gay laws should be enacted as to protect ourselves and the moral fiber of our society.

My first point is simple nature. Gays are outcasts in human society because of the gross deviation practiced and exhibited by homosexuality. Everything each sex represents (i.e Masculinity in men) is shunned and turned on it's ear by the homosexual culture. This is wrong in the pure sense of nature, and therefore is wrong. Homosexuality is a (my own personal opinion on science is stated here, not proven fact) genetic-inherited affliction that needs to be cured and erased from humanity. They serve no purpose to society except contributing to the increasing sense of degeneracy in our society today. If we allow gays to have their parades and shenanigans in public now, what will become of us later? Will pedophilia suddenly become a group that starts to vouch for their rights? Homosexuals are a minority for a reason, and I sincerely hope it will remain so.

My second point is that homosexuals do nothing more than contribute to the decay of moral fiber in the United States, which I presume is the only country we are currently speaking of. Homosexuals are one of the biggest groups prone to aids and all types of sexual diseases. It is also the gateway that has led to other groups becoming more bold and asking for rights, like transsexuals and trans genders. Sick people like this need not be even listened to. These are all diseases we should look down upon and try to cure.

To end my first retort, I will say that to compare that to the love a man feels for a woman, is an insult to millions of years of human evolution. Using deconstruction as a technique of inquiry serves no purpose but to reduce humanity to the least common denominator. The only purpose people have in insisting equal rights for homosexual relationships is the total breakdown of the traditional family unit. I will end that saying gays do not deserve to destroy the psyche of a child by adopting legally. And neither do they deserve any of the rights the rest of society deigns fit for normal people. Gays are not black people, or jews, which are people just like you or me. They are a deviant group of like minded individuals who can only hurt our society.
Debate Round No. 1
policydebategod2

Pro

My first point is simple nature.
- The fact that homosexuality is unnatural does not deter Americans but is rather a scapegoat and random excuse. Polyester, bifocals, plastic surgery is all unnatural and Americans seem to take a liking to it.

They serve no purpose to society except contributing to the increasing sense of degeneracy in our society today.
- Can you please show me how gays are contributing to the degeneracy of our society? You wouldnt sat gangs, strict religions, racists, Bushes arent contributing to that more so than the innocent culture of homosexuals?

If we allow gays to have their parades and shenanigans in public now, what will become of us later?
- We have the right of assembly! To take away that right is archaic and discriminatory.

Will pedophilia suddenly become a group that starts to vouch for their rights? Homosexuals are a minority for a reason, and I sincerely hope it will remain so.
- Pedophiles intentionally hurt other people. Thats like trying to insult blacks by saying will murderers ask for rights next? Gays just want to have fun and the definition of them is to practice love. You admitted that homosexuality is biologically proven.

My second point is that homosexuals do nothing more than contribute to the decay of moral fiber in the United States, which I presume is the only country we are currently speaking of.
- Homosexuals contribute to society just as well as heterosexuals. They take on the same jobs as heterosexuals. And homosexuality is not immoral.

Homosexuals are one of the biggest groups prone to aids and all types of sexual diseases.
- This is not true. Blacks are. Should we cure them?

It is also the gateway that has led to other groups becoming more bold and asking for rights, like transsexuals and trans genders. Sick people like this need not be even listened to. These are all diseases we should look down upon and try to cure.
- "Cures" for homosexuality have been invented and all fail(ed). Homosexuality is a biological trait. To say that it is a curable disease is like saying so is womanhood or black. To say that gays are sick and should not be listened to is like saying that cancer and AIDS patients should not be listened to. The Nazis said that being a jew was a disease. How are you any better than a Nazi?

To end my first retort, I will say that to compare that to the love a man feels for a woman, is an insult to millions of years of human evolution.
- Man and woman love is just as legitimate as homosexual love.

Using deconstruction as a technique of inquiry serves no purpose but to reduce humanity to the least common denominator. The only purpose people have in insisting equal rights for homosexual relationships is the total breakdown of the traditional family unit.
- There are tons of babies and children that heterosexual couples have simply abandoned and homosexual couples adopt them. This is necessary for the development of these children. Homosexuals are supporting the family unit.

I will end that saying gays do not deserve to destroy the psyche of a child by adopting legally.
- Gay and lesbian parenting enjoys broad support from medical experts. Organizations that have officially supported adoption by same-sex couples include the American Psychological Association, the Child Welfare League of America, the American Bar Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the North American Council on Adoptable Children, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Psychoanalytic Association, and the American Academy of Family Physicians.

The American Psychological Association states in its Resolution on Sexual Orientation, Parents, and Children (adopted July 2004):

there is no scientific evidence that parenting effectiveness is related to parental sexual orientation: lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children"; and "research has shown that the adjustment, development, and psychological well-being of children is unrelated to parental sexual orientation and that the children of lesbian and gay parents are as likely as those of heterosexual parents to flourish."

Similarly, Children's Development of Social Competence Across Family Types, a major report prepared by the Department of Justice (Canada) in July 2006 but not released by the government until forced to do so by a request under the Access to Information Act in May 2007, reaches this conclusion:

The strongest conclusion that can be drawn from the empirical literature is that the vast majority of studies show that children living with two mothers and children living with a mother and father have the same levels of social competence. A few studies suggest that children with two lesbian mothers may have marginally better social competence than children in traditional nuclear families, even fewer studies show the opposite, and most studies fail to find any differences. The very limited body of research on children with two gay fathers supports this same conclusion.

And neither do they deserve any of the rights the rest of society deigns fit for normal people. Gays are not black people, or jews, which are people just like you or me. They are a deviant group of like minded individuals who can only hurt our society.
- You are a Nazi and a Jim crow supporter in its bluntest form! This is the most dispicable, close minded, ridiculous statement Ive heard in possibly my entire life. How dare you even sugget that gays are sub human and then claim to be a sensible human being who is against Nazism and Exclusionism.
U.S_Patriot

Con

Actually, I would beg to differ on your first point of argument. Homosexuality being unnatural is one of the biggest deterrents to the acceptance of the practice. The mere fact that it is unnatural causes people to ridicule, and detest the practice. To compare a gross act of the perversion of what is naturally occurring is to again, insult thousands of year of human evolution. And to compare homosexuality to polyester, fake breasts, and bifocals of all things is ludicrous. These are all improvements on what occurs naturally. Please explain to me what homosexuality improves. Otherwise, this point has been defeated.

Your second point is also redundant. I explained that if we allow homosexuals equal rights, we are equating them to a functional heterosexual couple. This will lead to other fringe groups being allowed the same rights, and that in my and many other's opinions, is degeneracy. Reverting from something good and right to something of lesser value. In this case, it is moral degeneracy.

Oh yes, the right of assembly is allowed. However, to walk in public in horrendously revealing clothing is very stressful to many others. Also, the very sight of such an assembly is pleasing only to those in support of the movement. This, also contributes to the degeneracy of the moral fiber of this country. To have homosexual parades in which all of these lewd sites take place is ludicrous. They touch each other, wear little or no clothes, among many, many other things. This is wrong in the eyes of both the law, and in the eyes of many Americans. No matter what you say or believe, the majority of this country is against it.

The notion that homosexuality is genetic is a belief of mine. In no way is it proven, otherwise, the subject of homosexuality in America would be a totally different issue. Anyway, it is not an insult. It is in fact very true. The fact that transsexuals, trans genders, and homosexuals commonly jump on the same political bandwagon is reason to believe this. These obvious deviants to natural affairs all want the same rights. Now, this would have been unthinkable in the 50's. However, it is unmissable now. By this trend of liberal thinking, will other deviants be able to ask for rights in the future? Perhaps murderers? Perhaps pedophiles? This is not insulting anyone! However, homosexuals in the 50's were comparable to these other fringe groups I have mentioned. It is was unthinkable to be an open homosexual. Again, it is a pattern being set. Obvious groups that would not have dared vouched for themselves just might be granted amnesty under this wave of liberalism. On your point of "they just want to have fun", that is not revalent at all. Everyone wants to have fun. It is in what degree and what fashion. Touching on each other in parades is not an acceptable form of fun, especially in public.

Now, your point that they earn a living is valid. They do. But, does this mean they are right? No. Either you are a benefit to humanity or you are not.

Your point of homosexuals not being one of the biggest groups prone to aids and other diseases is quite incorrect. I have an aquaintance who is a paramedic, and this is quoted from him:

"When I got my Paramedic licence in 1993, there were five primary groups who were Aids prone:

1. Homosexuals

2. Inter venous drug users

3. People with multiple sexual partners

4. Haitians

5. Individuals who have had blood transfusions prior to 1984."

I think this is reason enough. Also, before the time of "politically correct thinking", aids was referred to as "gay fever". I don't think this came about for a special reason. Also, from http://www.leaderu.com...:

"Some 89 percent of persons known to have AIDS are homosexuals or intravenous drug users."

Enough facts to presume that if not the highest volume of the disease, certainly among the groups that have it the most.

Actually, hypothetically, if you agree with me that homosexuality is a genetic trait, we could take this gene out of humans entirely. I believe it was James Watson that suggested this. Also, please stop comparing my words to other outrageous notions. It is nothing like being black or a woman. To suggest that would be totally idiotic. And to compare me to a Nazi simply means you have run out of effective means of retort to my points, so you stoop to name calling.

Now, in my own experience, no matter what these organizations say, I will still go along with the notion that a child needs both effective male and female influence to be a successful person. Also, the amount of people who support this fact certainly are not absent:

http://www.narth.com...
http://www.narth.com...
http://www.family.org...
http://www.citizenlink.org...

I could go on, however, it would give no more support to my argument than those have.

In my final wrap up, giving in to their demands for "equality" (in comparison with the lifestyles of married heterosexual couples) would really only mean allowing them to be legally married and adopt children, which is an obvious perversion of decency. It would not quell the cultural phenomenon of the gay rights revolution, it would only give it a boost.

It is not like they're living under constant fear that the Gestapo is going to kick in their door at any moment and throw them on the next train to a concentration camp. "Rights" have become a byword for over privileged special interest groups with an agenda. They feign victim hood and persecution to make their overblown demands seem justified.

Is it not enough that they're allowed to live, unmolested by angry mobs and vigilantes, in the top tiers of society and enjoy all the fruits of a civilized society without discrimination in employment or housing?

Rights do not comply with The Right in all cases. Gay "Rights" are a slippery slope. I suggest you all watch America is a Changing Country, by Dr. Pierce, filmed shortly before his passing. Disregard the racial parts and skip to the parts about alternative lifestyles and their emergence in US culture.

(Also, I did not say they are subhuman in any form. They are humans just like you or me. The problem is their lifestyle. Again, calling me names and accusing me of things does nothing more than demonstrate your lack of retort.)

Please notice my opponent did not make a single point of his own. Obviously, there is nothing more to do here than to attempt to refute my points.
Debate Round No. 2
policydebategod2

Pro

policydebategod2 forfeited this round.
U.S_Patriot

Con

ATTENTION: My opponent has been banned from debate.org for reason of personal attacks here. However, he has posted an argument in the comments section, so if you still wish to vote for him, please do so.

Firstly, I would ask you to quote me correctly if you want to continue with your style of taking my words and saying something about them. Secondly, homosexuality, no matter how much you wish to believe it, is not natural. If it was natural, homosexuals could sustain themselves like a regular population of organisms. However, this is simply no so. Natural means abiding by the laws of nature. By disregarding one of the key aspects of survival, sustaining of your own population, you can easily say it is not natural. Yes, it occurs in the population. But it is just like a disorders and the like. I compared murderers to homosexuals in the sense that they are both perversions what is right, nothing else.

Also, bnet.com says that 47% of AIDS victims are black. Can some of those blacks also be homosexuals? This still proves my point. Also, the quote I gave from my friend is not a statistic, merely a go along quote to my point that they were, and still are a leading carrier of the AIDS virus.

You cannot compare a wheelchair and homosexuals. I have no inkling as to any link between these two topics.

Nazis marching in public are fully clothes, and in a very organized manner. Homosexual parades (trust me, look at my location in my profile) are usually rowdy demonstrations of what gays do in the bedroom, and what they wear there. This has no place in public, and I believe that they are only given the right to be rude in public because again, they are granted the "minority" card.

In conclusion, giving rights to people is all good and well. However, would our forefathers: Thomas Jefferson, Sam Adams, George Washington, approve of these decisions? They believed rights was good for a population. They were for a government that did not strip these liberties from the normal citizen. However, they did not envision a land where the government helped these people become an acceptable part of the population. In all, your points of comparing homosexuals to admired groups such as the civil rights marchers are nothing but nonsense.
Debate Round No. 3
90 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by anwermate 9 years ago
anwermate
Well i disagree with you saying that your correct in your view on gay rights, but sure correct and accepting are different. Sometimes. Most of the time accepting others is easily justified to be the correct moral choice. Rarely is it that labeling a particular sect of society is correct.
Posted by U.S_Patriot 9 years ago
U.S_Patriot
Correct and accepting is a different issue. Whether someone is fundamentally alright, and whether their views are just different is two different realms.
Posted by anwermate 9 years ago
anwermate
I am totally all for people having unique views, that is why i am for gay rights seeing as they have their own view and i believe that people should be able to have that right. What i am saying is that it is sad that you convince yourself that you are accepting peoples views when infact you wish an entire section of society to be inferior to the rest. You may have your own views, however i think that the purposeful oppresion of others is a bad thing.
Posted by U.S_Patriot 9 years ago
U.S_Patriot
It is sad that your views are the way they are. Different people believe different things. How about people start accepting people of different views rather than auto-voiding what they have to say? Am I supposed to be a mainstream liberal, accepting whatever the media and the rest of my peers believe?

Papryka, it is an emotion for me. I feel it is just not right. But, it doesn't stop me from appreciating beauty.
Posted by anwermate 9 years ago
anwermate
Its sad that at seventeen your views have already been shaped into making you prejudice and using the essentially the same arguments that justified slavery to justify the loss of rights by gays
Posted by Papryka 9 years ago
Papryka
That is true, Patriot.

The main thinking is that it's all about love and emotion. Not about the bits and pieces the person may have.
Posted by U.S_Patriot 9 years ago
U.S_Patriot
Well, I can infer by Pan. Attraction to people disregarding their gender or natural gender.
Posted by Papryka 9 years ago
Papryka
Do you even know what pansexuality is?

I'm curious...
Posted by U.S_Patriot 9 years ago
U.S_Patriot
It does in a way, and I would surely not support those views. Wicca beliefs have no effect on me, I don't care what religion anyone is. But the pansexuality I would not support.

And evil conservative nazi pig dogs cannot appreciate beauty? So sad.
Posted by Papryka 9 years ago
Papryka
I'm still not quite sure if I take it as such.

But does my pansexuality and pagan/wicca beliefs have no affect on your opinion of me?

I'm just curious.
26 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Lennox 9 years ago
Lennox
policydebategod2U.S_PatriotTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by skiies23 9 years ago
skiies23
policydebategod2U.S_PatriotTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Vikuta 9 years ago
Vikuta
policydebategod2U.S_PatriotTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Kals 9 years ago
Kals
policydebategod2U.S_PatriotTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by tarsjake 9 years ago
tarsjake
policydebategod2U.S_PatriotTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by anwermate 9 years ago
anwermate
policydebategod2U.S_PatriotTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by kennard 9 years ago
kennard
policydebategod2U.S_PatriotTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by thisearthlyride 9 years ago
thisearthlyride
policydebategod2U.S_PatriotTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by thelemite 9 years ago
thelemite
policydebategod2U.S_PatriotTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by johnwooding1 9 years ago
johnwooding1
policydebategod2U.S_PatriotTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30