The Instigator
Fourth_Right
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
CosmoJarvis
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Anything you disagree with me on

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/12/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 10 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,284 times Debate No: 100840
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (56)
Votes (0)

 

Fourth_Right

Pro

Abortion--------Con
Affirmative Action--------Con
Animal Rights--------Con
Barack Obama--------Con
Border Fence--------Pro
Capitalism--------Pro
Civil Unions--------Con
Death Penalty--------Pro
Drug Legalization--------Pro
Electoral College--------Pro
Environmental Protection--------Pro
Estate Tax--------Pro
European Union--------Con
Euthanasia--------Pro
Federal Reserve--------Con
Flat Tax--------Pro
Free Trade--------Con
Gay Marriage--------Con
Global Warming Exists--------Und
Globalization--------Con
Gold Standard--------Pro
Gun Rights--------Pro
Homeschooling--------Pro
Internet Censorship--------Con
Iran-Iraq War--------Con
Labor Union--------Con
Legalized Prostitution--------Pro
Medicaid & Medicare--------Pro
Medical Marijuana--------Pro
Military Intervention--------N/O
Minimum Wage--------Und
National Health Care--------Und
National Retail Sales Tax--------Con
Occupy Movement--------Con
Progressive Tax--------Con
Racial Profiling--------Pro
Redistribution--------Con
Smoking Ban--------N/O
Social Programs--------Pro
Social Security--------Pro
Socialism--------Und
Stimulus Spending--------Con
Term Limits--------Pro
Torture--------N/O
United Nations--------Con
War in Afghanistan--------Con
War on Terror--------Con
Welfare--------Con
CosmoJarvis

Con

Would you like to debate gay marriage?
Debate Round No. 1
Fourth_Right

Pro

Yes! Absolutely.
Thank you for taking me up on this, Mr. CosmoJarvis!

So, I'm against gay marriage as far as state recognition is concerned.
This comes from my view of society at large and what is necessary to maintain structure.

I'd like to preface this whole thing by stating I'm not against homosexuals having human rights and being treated like humans, with respect and all that. I am against "gay" rights, and I shall explain later.

Now, I'd like to use the analogy of the tribe mainly because humans are tribal creatures (tribal meaning pack/pride oriented).
A tribe is as successful as its men. The male sex is the competitive sex, so it is every man's purpose to seek out resources and provide and protect the tribe. The female sex is designed to carry and raise children, so it is every women's role to maintain the structures of civilization and rear and raise children.
If one tribe conquered another - killing the men - the women were the spoils. Women are an extremely valuable resource, arguably and in my view THE most important and valuable.
If the women of the tribe no longer sought to reproduce, the tribe would die. No generations to carry forward, no men to provide, to women to carry children = no tribe.
Being that women have the choice of mate and by and large don't have to compete for mates, they express hypergamous traits.
Men, being that they don't carry children and therefore aren't physically incapable for up to a year or more, express polygamous traits.

Hypergamy and polygamy - what a terrible combo.

The only way to fix this, is a form of social redistribution of the female resource. Marriage.
Lock one man to one woman (at least publicly) and you have the family unit. The family unit, being the foundation of civilization, must be supported and aspired to - lest the tribe dies out.

Due to this, the state (as the apparatus of a society) should reward, heavily, the family unit with tax breaks and other privileges. If two men or two women were to cohabit and unify, that does nothing for society's future.
They cannot conceive naturally and even if they were to somehow come into possession of a child they couldn't provide the natural familial structure and upbringing that is demanded of the natural world.

The end result is this statement: gays don't have children, so they should NOT receive the same privileges as married couples.

If you'd like to argue for civil unions with no tax incentives then sure, but my response is why does it matter if the state recognizes your love for each other?
CosmoJarvis

Con

I. Introduction

I will be advocating for homosexual marriage by explaining how homosexuality is natural, marriage is the right of all people regardless of sexual preference, and how homosexual couples are capable of properly raising children. I will save my rebuttals to my opponent's argument in the next round.

Homosexuality: sexual desire or behavior directed toward a person or persons of one's own sex (S1).

Marriage: any of the diverse forms of interpersonal union established in various parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities and including, for example, opposite-sex marriage and same-sex marriage (S2).

II. Homosexuality

One of the greatest misconceptions about homosexuality is that "it's a choice." However, both studies and observations in our environment strongly provide leverage for the theory of homosexuality being a genetic trait.

A study conducted by Dr. Tuck C. Ngun and his team at the University of California discovered what they believe to be the "gay gene." Ngun and his team gathered 37 pairs of twins, where one was homosexual and the other was heterosexual. Then, blood was taken from each subject. By analyzing the DNA, Ngun and his team have isolated a gene known as the "Xq28 marker." This piece of DNA is believed to be the "gay gene," (S3).

Another strong piece of evidence pointing to the belief that homosexuality is natural is its common appearance in nature. Virtually all species, aside from asexual species, possess some members that are homosexual. No, this is not some "conscious act against God," which many religious zealots claim homosexuality to be, obviously evident by how animals lack the cognitive ability to understand the concept of "God" and "sin." Some animals exhibit homosexual behavior because their impulses naturally drive them to (S4).


I would also like to address the bogus idea that "homosexuals are immoral." This belief is mostly derived from religious beliefs, such as Christianity, where homosexuality is a direct act against God and that there's a place in the firey sulfur lakes of Hell for these "sexually immoral heathens." However, famous religious figures such as Pope Francis have become more accepting of the homosexual community. He has publicly apologized to homosexuals that have been marginalized by the Church, going as far to say "[homosexuals] must not be discriminated against but must be respected and accompanied pastorally," (S5).

Additionally, one of the biggest fallacies is that "homosexual men are more likely to sexually harass and molest children." Of course, there has been no credible evidence to support these claims. In fact, according to research conducted by Dr. Gregory Herek, adults, regardless of their sexual orientation, are equally likely to commit molestation (S6), showing that there is no correlation between sexual orientation and the tendency to molest children.


III. Marriage

Marriage, as I have previously defined before, is the legal union between two people of the opposite or same sex. According to statistics collected by Pew Research Center in 2016, approximately 55% of Americans support homosexual marriage (S7), and this number is gradually rising.

Many people are horrified of the lurid consequences of the legalization of homosexual marriage. However, as infogr.am argues, "Gay Marriage will have no impact whatsoever on heterosexual communities, just as racial integration in the 60's had no negative impact on white communities. This is the same concept with the legalization of gay marriage, it will grant the LGBT community a right that has been immorally denied to them," (S8). The legalization of homosexual marriage will not destroy traditional marriage nor will it give leverage to the invasion of the rights of people.


One of the greatest arguments against homosexual marriage is that it is attacks the institution of marriage. However, what makes this argument so ridiculous is that the divorce rate in America is practically over 50%. If anti-gay activists truly wished to "protect the institution of marriage," certainly they'd much rather advocate for the outlawing of divorce. Additionally, demographic data suggests that homosexual marriage will protect the institution of marriage (S9). According to NBC, states that allow same-sex marriage have lower divorce rates. These statistics demonstrated that states that legalized homosexual marriage in 2013 had a divorce rate approximately 20% lower than states that prohibited it (S10).

IV. Are Homosexuals Capable of Raising Children

Many question the ability of homosexual couples to raise children. However, recent studies have shown that homosexuals are capable of being good parents. Abbie Goldberg, a psychologist at Clark University who researches gay and lesbian parenting, says that gay parents "tend to be more motivated, more committed than heterosexual parents on average, because they chose to be parents." Research also suggests that gay and lesbian parents are a powerful resource for kids in need of adoption. According to a 2007 report by the Williams Institute and the Urban Institute, 65,000 kids were living with adoptive gay parents between 2000 and 2002, with another 14,000 children living in foster homes of gays and lesbians. Research has also shown that the kids of same-sex couples were raised no worse than kids of straight couples in terms of mental health, social functioning and school performance. In a 2010 study conducted by sociologist Judith Stacey and Tim Biblarz, there were no differences found between children raised by heterosexual parents and children raised by lesbian parents (S11). Other research that suggest that homosexuals are compatible parents was conducted by the American Academy of Pediatrics. The association holds that "the research has been remarkably consistent in showing that [homosexual] parents are every bit as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents," (S12).

V. Sources
S1) http://www.dictionary.com.........

S2) http://www.dictionary.com.........
S3) http://www.telegraph.co.uk.........
S4) https://en.wikipedia.org.........
S5) https://cruxnow.com.........
S6) http://psychology.ucdavis.edu.........
S7) http://www.pewforum.org.........
S8) https://infogr.am.........
S9) http://ic.galegroup.com.........
S10) http://www.nbcchicago.com.........
S11) http://www.livescience.com.........
S12) http://www.latimes.com.........
Debate Round No. 2
Fourth_Right

Pro

The definition of marriage provided is accurate, though I should have made clear I'm speaking not of the modern "idea" of marriage, but of the traditional institution of marriage as a union between a man and a woman in order to produce and care for their children.
If the opposition has a grievance with this concept, I would like to ask that he describes a society without the above described institution implemented in any formal or informal way.

Homosexuality

So, firstly, I'd like to take note of the religious zealot strawman erected by the opposition.
Not only am I not advocating for any religious institution, but I'm not even making an immoral claim against homosexuals.
I propose a system of state recognized institutional union between a man and a woman that the state then provides tax breaks, welfare programs and other incentives for. Because without this, as we see in the developed world today, women and men choose individualism and atomization over parenthood. Because parenthood is hard, and scoffed at by many in today's world. [https://en.wikipedia.org... --- which is sourced to the 2016 CIA World Factbook]

Also, a study of 37 pairs of twins gives credence to the idea that homosexuality is "natural" and it is implied that this is fine?
Appeals to nature are essentially fallacious. Ducks (and many other creatures) almost solely reproduce via rape, is it then moral for me to rape? [Thornhill and Palmer: A Natural History of Rape / http://courses.washington.edu...]

If homosexuality is in fact natural, then they are just as natural as harmful genetic mutations are natural - this does not mean they should be promoted.
However, "In research with 942 nonclinical adult participants, gay men and lesbian women reported a significantly higher rate of childhood molestation than did heterosexual men and women. Forty-six percent of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation. Twenty-two percent of lesbian women in contrast to 1% of heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation." [https://link.springer.com...]
This should be investigated, and yet in the modern politically correct world this is considered heresy.

Homosexual Males are Sexually Attracted to Underage Boys
According to the Archives of Sexual Behavior, homosexual men are attracted to underage males. The study compared the sexual age preferences of heterosexual men, heterosexual women, homosexual men, and lesbians. The results showed that, in marked contrast to the other three categories, "all but 9 of the 48 homosexual men preferred the youngest two male age categories," which included males as young as age fifteen. [http://www.frc.org...]

This may be a vicious cycle. Perhaps it begins with a genetic malfunction, but perhaps it perpetuates with already ill adults preying on young boys. Many cultures from the ancient Greeks to the modern New Guineans have exhibited this behavior and make credible my claim that this may in fact be cyclical and ill in nature.
[https://books.google.jo... / https://kb.osu.edu...]

My stance, however immoral or moral a person's homosexuality is, is that homosexuality being tolerated is a marker of a healthy society, but homosexuals should not receive the benefits and privileges a society should reward the traditional family unit because they are fundamentally incapable of producing another generation within their own unions. [citation not needed, man+man or woman+woman can not equal a child]

Marriage

Seemingly an attempt at appealing to authority, the opposition states that slightly more than half of Americans are okay with gay marriage. But what does this prove?
The source provided here also makes the claim that gay marriage will be like racial integration and have no negative impact on society. Well, the cities of New York, Los Angeles, Detroit, Chicago, London, Berlin, Stockholm and countless others refute this egalitarian myth.
Here are a few sources that show this:
U.S. Blacks and Hispanics are much more violent than Whites and are responsible for a disproportionate amount of violent crime considering their minority status.
[https://www.census.gov...]
[http://www.nyc.gov...]
[https://ucr.fbi.gov...]

Germany is experiencing a dramatic rise in crime due to African migrants
[https://www.google.com...]

With that said, I digress to the original argument of homosexuality.
On the position that it will not invade on the rights of people, a religious man (guaranteed his right to practice by the 1st amendment) was demanded by a U.S. court to sell a cake to a gay couple.
[http://aclu-co.org...]

On the claim that it will not destroy marriage, I will argue that it already has and my proof and citation is the opposition and the words he uses to describe it. Marriage has been so diluted and divorced from its original intent that the opposition uses an accepted yet obviously vague definition of "any of the diverse forms of interpersonal union established in various parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities and including, for example, opposite-sex marriage and same-sex marriage."
The fact that this is accepted proves my point of dilution.
Degeneracy, of which homosexual promotion is a part, has already proven to negatively affect traditional institutions, of which marriage is a part. We need only to ask ourselves what is considered "old fashioned" or "outdated" and we come to the truth all our own.

Homosexuals raising children

I refer to my points above about homosexual attraction to youth, and their propensity to abuse children. [http://www.familyresearchinst.org...]

I would like to thank the opposition for attending this debate and citing sources for his argument.
CosmoJarvis

Con

For the third round, I will respond to my opponent's opening arguments.

"Women are an extremely valuable resource, arguably and in my view THE most important and valuable. If the women of the tribe no longer sought to reproduce, the tribe would die. No generations to carry forward, no men to provide, to women to carry children = no tribe... The only way to fix this, is a form of social redistribution of the female resource. Marriage. Lock one man to one woman (at least publicly) and you have the family unit."
My opponent's entire argument encompasses the idea that, because homosexuals don't have children, they shouldn't be married. He defines marriage as being a union between a male and a female created for the purposes of reproduction and creating a family. He proceeds to argue that, because homosexual men and women cannot conceive naturally, they cannot, as my opponent claims, "provide the natural familial structure and upbringing that is demanded of the natural world... even if they were somehow come into possession of a child."

Firstly, I'd like to address how my opponent argues that homosexuals should not be married because they cannot procreate. There is something known as artificial insemination, where a man can donate sperm, and a woman can yield a baby. Some lesbian choose to do that. So should lesbian women who choose to get pregnant be granted the privilege to marry? Also, should heterosexual infertile women not be able to marry?
Secondly, as I have addressed in my argument, according to studies and psychologists such as Abbie Goldberg, homosexuals are capable of being good parents. Goldberg claims that gay parents "tend to be more motivated, more committed than heterosexual parents on average because they chose to be parents."
Debate Round No. 3
Fourth_Right

Pro

The opposition states my core argument correctly at first.
"My opponent's entire argument encompasses the idea that, because homosexuals don't have children, they shouldn't be married."
I posit that an institution should exist that promotes heterosexual monogamy and child rearing through state recognition, financial incentive, social admiration and other such privileges as to ensure the continuation of a society.

Also, I think other forms of union should exist which could be used to recognize, in an official capacity, the unified status of two consenting parties, but that should not receive benefits and privileges as they do not directly ensure the survival of the society.

"There is something known as artificial insemination, where a man can donate sperm, and a woman can yield a baby. Some lesbian choose to do that. So should lesbian women who choose to get pregnant be granted the privilege to marry?"

No. They can receive a tax break but must first prove to be healthy and capable of raising a child properly - which I have doubts of, considering "The CDC"s 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, released again in 2013 with new analysis, reports...that the lifetime prevalence of rape, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner was 43.8 percent for lesbians, 61.1 percent for bisexual women, and 35 percent for heterosexual women, while it was 26 percent for gay men, 37.3 percent for bisexual men, and 29 percent for heterosexual men (this study did not include gender identity or expression)." [http://www.advocate.com...]

"Also, should heterosexual infertile women not be able to marry?"
Correct, unless aforementioned artificial insemination or other procedures assist them. Though unions are still allowed.

Finally, the opposition makes the claim that homosexuals are better parents because they chose to become parents.

"Secondly, as I have addressed in my argument, according to studies and psychologists such as Abbie Goldberg, homosexuals are capable of being good parents. Goldberg claims that gay parents "tend to be more motivated, more committed than heterosexual parents on average because they chose to be parents."

First, from what metric can anyone prove that one person is more "motivated and/or committed" than another?
This appears to be conjecture.
The Abbie Goldberg mentioned admits this in said source material, saying that some of her statements are conjecture and not based on any data. [http://www.livescience.com...]

I would like to make clear this also seems to imply that straight couples that more often do not choose to conceive.
The argument appears to be a reference to the fact that almost half of pregnancies in the U.S. are unintended, as stated in the source material provided by the opposition and in the following. [http://www.nejm.org...]

The definition of an unintended pregnancy is, according to guttmacher.org, "...one that was either mistimed or unwanted (45% of all pregnancies).
This means both improper timing AND total unwanted conception is included in the metric.
Searching for the unwanted pregnancies alone, we find that amount is 18% of all pregnancies.
[https://www.guttmacher.org...]

18% is obviously a far cry from the implication the opposition purported of "most."

The source and argument provided by the opposition is largely an appeal to emotion.
There is no reason to believe that the genetic mutation that causes homosexuality would aid, in any way, that person's ability to rear a child properly.
Furthermore, as I've shown, this gene seems to express a sort of extra-sexual reproduction via the abuse of children causing them to express homosexual behavior later in life. [https://www.lifesitenews.com...] [http://www.freerepublic.com...]

This makes sense logically.
The gay gene cannot reproduce naturally as its host finds itself attracted to the same sex, therefore it must find another way to carry itself on. The most likely method would be via epigenetic mutation by external force, as the "extra-sexual" reproduction method I described above, a form of traumatic inception.

I will close by saying that homosexuals deserve human rights, but they do not have the right to adopt or artificially conceive, and if there is even the slightest chance that homosexuals are more likely to be predatory (as I've illustrated to be true) then we should remain wary and skeptical to any of those that seek the privilege of becoming parents.
CosmoJarvis

Con

For the fourth round, I will be refuting my opponent's arguments in round three and four.

Round Three:

"I propose a system of state recognized institutional union between a man and a woman that the state then provides tax breaks, welfare programs and other incentives for. Because without this, as we see in the developed world today, women and men choose individualism and atomization over parenthood. Because parenthood is hard, and scoffed at by many in today's world."
My opponent proposes that the state recognizes straight marriage, and provides tax breaks, welfare programs and other incentives for straight marriage. My opponent believes that, without incentives to marry, men and women will choose other things, such as individualism, over parenthood. However, nowhere does my opponent explain why we need to incentivise and support straight marriage. What will straight marriage do to improve our society? Yes, straight marriage rates have decreased ever since the United States has given women more of a role than just "working in the kitchen" and procreating, and because of the announcement of homosexual marriage. However, what makes the drop in straight marriage rates so bad that we need to provide financial incentives to marry?


"Also, a study of 37 pairs of twins gives credence to the idea that homosexuality is "natural" and it is implied that this is fine? Appeals to nature are essentially fallacious. Ducks (and many other creatures) almost solely reproduce via rape, is it then moral for me to rape? ... If homosexuality is in fact natural, then they are just as natural as harmful genetic mutations are natural - this does not mean they should be promoted."
In my opening argument, I explained that homosexuality is natural, as demonstrated by Dr. Tuck Ngun and the University of California's research of finding what is theorized for be the "gay gene," and by incorporating how homosexuality is found in other species aside from humans proving that homosexuality is not a "sin," but rather, a natural impulse exhibited by both humans and other animals.

To refute my statement, my opponent uses the logic that, because some animals reproduce via rape, should rape be accepted in modern society? He also compares homosexuality to harmful genetic mutations. Such assumptions and comparisons seems fairly outlandish. My opponent, who claimed that "I'm not against homosexuals," in round two, asserts that homosexuality is a concept as harmful and perverse as rape or damaging genetic mutations.

"However, "In research with 942 nonclinical adult participants, gay men and lesbian women reported a significantly higher rate of childhood molestation than did heterosexual men and women. Forty-six percent of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation. Twenty-two percent of lesbian women in contrast to 1% of heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation." [https://link.springer.com......]"
My opponent cited the scientific research paper, "Comparative Data of Childhood and Adolescence Molestation in Heterosexual and Homosexual Persons" to describe how harmful homosexuality is to others. My opponent dreadfully misinterpreted this article. He made the mistake of thinking that this article was about how many homosexual adults, of the 942 participants, sexually abused children. However, this article actually is a study of how many homosexual people were sexually abused as a child.


"According to the Archives of Sexual Behavior, homosexual men are attracted to underage males. The study compared the sexual age preferences of heterosexual men, heterosexual women, homosexual men, and lesbians. The results showed that, in marked contrast to the other three categories, "all but 9 of the 48 homosexual men preferred the youngest two male age categories," which included males as young as age fifteen. [http://www.frc.org......]"
To support the superstition that homosexual men are attracted to underage children, my opponent cites information from the FRC, the Family Research Center. The FRC is a highly biased, conservative website that takes a stringent stance against abortion and homosexuality. The FRC makes its stance clear on homosexuality by saying "Family Research Council believes that homosexual conduct is harmful to the persons who engage in it and to society at large, and can never be affirmed. It is by definition unnatural, and as such is associated with negative physical and psychological health effects... there is no convincing evidence that a homosexual identity is ever something genetic or inborn. We oppose the vigorous efforts of homosexual activists to demand that homosexuality be accepted as equivalent to heterosexuality in law, in the media, and in schools." Two things can be immediately drawn from this statement: the FRC denies homosexuality as being natural, and believes that homosexuals should not be equally protected under law and people should have the right to discriminate homosexuals. In trying to assert that most pedophiles are comprised of homosexuals, the FRC uses baseless claims and unsupported data. Because of the Family Research Center's unsupported data and evident bias against homosexuality, the "evidence" that my opponent uses from the FRC is completely baseless.

"I refer to my points above about homosexual attraction to youth, and their propensity to abuse children."
...Of which the majority of your points were refuted.


Round Four:

"Also, should heterosexual infertile women not be able to marry?' Correct, unless aforementioned artificial insemination or other procedures assist them.
As obviously displayed in the previous rounds, my opponent defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman solely for the purposes of reproduction and raising a child. As I have tried to demonstrate, there are many holes in my opponent's argument. My opponent not only opposes homosexual marriage, but also the union between a man and an infertile woman. he proposes, in fact, that marriage be not a right, but an exclusive privilege or "reward" to those who can and will procreate. That brings up the question: what need is there to procreate? Why must we go such lengths, to provide, as my opponent suggests, welfare and tax breaks from taxpayers' hard-earned money to those who can reproduce? Is humanity going extinct? Humanity is nearly at its carrying capacity for humans; there are fewer jobs; finite resources are getting depleted at a rapid rate; many parts of the world are going hungry; there are droughts in parts of America. Why do we need to encourage more people to reproduce?


"First, from what metric can anyone prove that one person is more "motivated and/or committed" than another [to raising children]? This appears to be conjecture."
This belief can be made by the assumption that, because same-sex couples cannot naturally procreate, homosexual parents will be voluntarily making the choice to adopt a child, and while Abbie Goldberg did not conduct a nonclinical study to prove her ideas, she is a credible psychologist who is well-versed on homosexuality and homosexual parenting.


"I will close by saying that homosexuals deserve human rights, but they do not have the right to adopt or artificially conceive, and if there is even the slightest chance that homosexuals are more likely to be predatory (as I've illustrated to be true) then we should remain wary and skeptical to any of those that seek the privilege of becoming parents."
I confidently believe that I successfully refuted most of my opponent's claims on how immoral and perverse homosexuality is. Therefore, my opponent cannot make a valid claim that most homosexuals are incapable of being parents, or are more likely to be predators.
Debate Round No. 4
Fourth_Right

Pro

However, nowhere does my opponent explain why we need to incentivise and support straight marriage. What will straight marriage do to improve our society?"

The opposition wrongly states I haven't explained why. I have but I will again, it is simple math.
A society and its culture can not continue without its people procreating and, as the opposition states correctly, developed countries are experiencing a decline in marriage rates and also a decline in birth rates. Many of these countries are beneath replacement rates. [https://en.wikipedia.org... / https://www.pop.org...]

Straight marriage incentives will make more men and women choose parenthood, and more parents in stable homes means more healthy, happy children which makes for a prosperous and successful society.

"I explained that homosexuality is natural, as demonstrated by...the "gay gene," and by incorporating how homosexuality is found in other species aside from humans proving that homosexuality is not a "sin,"

I said it may in fact be a natural thing that reproduces via trauma, never said it was a sin. I find it odd that these religious words keep appearing in the opposition's argument when I never said anything in regards to faith or spirituality.

"To refute my statement, my opponent uses the logic that, because some animals reproduce via rape, should rape be accepted in modern society?"

I used that logic to illustrate how an appeal to nature is inherently fallacious. The opposition would in fact be the one to believe, since rape is natural, that it should be accepted.

"He also compares homosexuality to harmful genetic mutations. Such assumptions and comparisons seems fairly outlandish."

I was further illustrating the point that nature isn't always beneficial. A society of homosexuals would cease to exist in 1 generation. Homosexuality may not be inherently harmful on an individual level but it is harmful on the societal level. This leads to my point that it should not be promoted, but it should be tolerated.

"My opponent, who claimed that "I'm not against homosexuals," in round two, asserts that homosexuality is a concept as harmful and perverse as rape or damaging genetic mutations."

I will clarify. I am not against the homosexual individual so long as they refrain from illegal behavior. I do not think they deserve privilege in society, I do believe they deserve equal treatment before the law, tolerance and such things.

"My opponent cited..."Comparative Data of Childhood and Adolescence Molestation in Heterosexual and Homosexual Persons" to describe how harmful homosexuality is to others...He made the mistake of thinking that this article was about how many homosexual adults, of the 942 participants, sexually abused children. However, this article actually is a study of how many homosexual people were sexually abused as a child."

This study accurately depicts that homosexuals are the victims of childhood molestation more frequently than heterosexuals, I did not misinterpret this. I believe this study supports the idea that homosexual behavior leads to increased likelihood of child abuse. My other sources show this tendency also.
I posit that perhaps since the homosexual gene wishes to reproduce but lacks the ability to normally, it may reproduce via trauma inflicted on developing minds.
This was what this source was meant to illustrate.

"Because of the Family Research Center's unsupported data and evident bias against homosexuality, the "evidence" that my opponent uses from the FRC is completely baseless."

A broken clock is right twice a day.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
If you ask a (Nazi/Communist) what time it is at noon, and he says "noon" - he is still right about something.
None of what the opposition stated was in any way a refutation of the core point, besides the ad hominem of attacking my source for having a clearly stated conservative bias, and the muddying of the waters by claiming their evidence was unsupported. If attacking source "lean" is a valid form of argumentation, then we could just attack each others bias in this very debate.

These were not arguments against my position. Child sexual abuse has been shown by a fair amount of sources to possibly have a causal relationship to homosexuality in adulthood.
This being such a contentious issue (in which the majority of people find themselves on a single side) leads to anyone that publicly "goes against the grain" becomes branded as radical or just too partisan, as the opposition has aptly illustrated for us.
With this in mind, I provide here an (as close to) objective source as possible. One that states both sides of the argument clearly and succinctly. [http://borngay.procon.org...]
I wish to remind the opposition and any readers that such a loaded, emotional topic must be approached with a clear mind that is willing to accept change. I make the case that homosexuality and child abuse MAY have a causal relationship, not that this means that all homosexuals need to be discriminated against, regardless of what sources may believe.

"what need is there to procreate?"
Declining births in developed nations that are beneath replacement rates. Our options are 1) import foreigners or 2) increase birth rates. I propose option 2.

"Why must we go such lengths, to provide, as my opponent suggests, welfare and tax breaks from taxpayers' hard-earned money to those who can reproduce?"

Falling birth rates and the fact that the without children a society will literally cease to exist, or as my opponent says decoratively "Is humanity going extinct?"
Well, no but that isn't what I'm suggesting so purporting that is uncharitable at best. Society's can go extinct without humanity following. Observe the Romans, Ancient Greeks, Phoenicians, Coptic Egyptians and many more.
These cultures, and in many cases, these very ethnic groups, have declined to the point of marginalization or complete destruction.

"Humanity is nearly at its carrying capacity for humans; there are fewer jobs; finite resources are getting depleted at a rapid rate; many parts of the world are going hungry; there are droughts in parts of America..."

The opposition asks if humanity is going extinct in a seemingly condescending way and then proceeds to describe this?
It almost sounds like, by his own statement, that humanity is approaching extinction!

Anyway, the developing world is largely the cause of increasing world population. These parts of the world don't provide much in the way of technology or scientists to fix any of the stated issues, so we should promote families in developed nations that can help not only themselves but the world at large. Who will carry the torch of progress into the next millennia?

Furthermore, on resources, "It is not the number of people on the planet that is the issue " but the number of consumers and the scale and nature of their consumption," says David Satterthwaite, a senior fellow at the International Institute for Environment and Development in London.
It seems to some experts that overpopulation is being framed incorrectly and misinterpreted.
[http://www.bbc.com...] [https://www.pop.org...]

"...while Abbie Goldberg did not conduct a nonclinical study to prove her ideas, she is a credible psychologist..."

Abbie Goldberg's credentials and untested opinion are not an argument. This is a fallacious appeal to authority, as Abbie has an obvious pro-homosexual bias and hasn't tested her hypothesis as credible psychologists are supposed to do.
[http://www.appealtoauthority.info...]

I believe to have supported my argument substantially and validated my points.
I thank the opposition and ask for closing arguments for the fifth round.
CosmoJarvis

Con

Throughout the course of the debate, I have substantially established that homosexuality is natural, and from this basis, I explained, through both reasoning, credible sources and research, that homosexual couples deserve the right to marry and adopt children. To provide leverage towards my argument, I addressed the wrongly-made assertions that homosexuals are "sexual predators," and that homosexuals "destroy the institution of marriage," by using statistical evidence.

My opponent's main argument as to why homosexual marriage is wrong is because "it will destroy [the institution of] marriage." Yet, he admits in the beginning of his argument that he's not "speaking not of the modern 'idea' of marriage, but of the traditional institution of marriage as a union between a man and a woman in order to produce and care for their children." To put it simply, he has skewed the definition of marriage to suit his argument; he describes marriage solely as the means to procreate.

Even though my opponent, in the beginning of his first argument, said that he would "not even making an immoral claim against homosexuals," a fair amount of his argument, arguably half, consists of him talking about how homosexuals are "unnatural," or "immoral," claiming that "[homosexuality] should not be promoted" and that "Degeneracy, of which homosexual promotion is a part, has already proven to negatively affect traditional institutions, of which marriage is a part," by making boondoggle arguments such as how "homosexual men are attracted to underage males." What shocks me is that he does not use qualitative words such as "some," which makes me think that he's suggesting that all homosexual men are attracted to younger boys. Though it is apparent, throughout his argument, that he is not very careful, if not reckless, with the sources and words he uses. To make the point that homosexuals are more likely to sexually abuse children, he used statistics from the research paper, "Comparative Data of Childhood and Adolescence Molestation in Heterosexual and Homosexual Persons." Ironically, though, these statistics weren't of how many homosexuals molested children, but of how many homosexuals WERE molested as children. It's ridiculous, if not pitiful, that my opponent has gone to such lengths to create such as disgraceful argument in that respect. My opponent continues on with this crusade of how homosexuals were sexually attracted to children by using information from the Family Research Center, the FRC. As I have explained in Round Four, the Family Research Center is blatantly biased! The FRC makes its stance clear on homosexuality by saying that they believe "that homosexual conduct is harmful to the persons who engage in it and to society at large, and can never be affirmed. It is by definition unnatural, and as such is associated with negative physical and psychological health effects... there is no convincing evidence that a homosexual identity is ever something genetic or inborn. We oppose the vigorous efforts of homosexual activists to demand that homosexuality be accepted as equivalent to heterosexuality in law, in the media, and in schools." Because of the FRC's unsupported data and evident bias against homosexuality, the statistics my opponent used are completely baseless. My opponent also makes an intolerant remark on how, if "homosexuality is natural... it is implied that this is fine? Appeals to nature are essentially fallacious. Ducks (and many other creatures) almost solely reproduce via rape, is it then moral for me to rape?" My opponent deliberately tries to compare homosexuality to rape simply because I made the point that homosexuality is natural.

My opponent's second appeal towards why homosexual marriage should not be allowed is because it would supposedly hamper with straight marriage and procreation. My opponent overexaggerates the "negative effects" homosexuality may reap on birth rates, going as far as asking "Who will carry the torch of progress into the next millennia?" My opponent's solution to increase birth rates is to not only make homosexual marriage illegal, but to promote heterosexual marriage with "state recognition, financial incentive, social admiration and other such privileges [in order to] ensure the continuation of a society." My opponent argues that we should provide financial and social rewards to heterosexual couples for being capable of procreating a child. Yet, my opponent fails to provide any justification for why we should do that aside from odd rhetoric and hypothetical questions about how, if we legalize homosexual marriage, how will the human species survive? These fears are far from rational. According to the William's Institute School of Law (https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu...), only a mere 3.5% of Americans identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual. Certainly, 3.5% of Americans will not cause such a great decrease in birth rates.


I would like to conclude this debate by thanking my opponent, Fourth_Right, for this civil and exciting debate, though, I'd prefer if my opponent refrained from calling spectators rude names and fighting them for not agreeing with some of his statements. Good debate.
Debate Round No. 5
56 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Fourth_Right 10 months ago
Fourth_Right
Are all my sources biased?
In any case, you must know that any scientist who makes that claim as a hypothesis to test faces heavy social repercussions and therefore this issue is an intensely partisan one. Sides are established, the way the lines are drawn you are either anti-gay or pro-human rights. This doesn't make for easy conversation.
Posted by Carp.J98 10 months ago
Carp.J98
Your claim that homosexuals are more likely to be predators is founded in an extremely biased source and therefore cannot be treated as credible.
Posted by Fourth_Right 10 months ago
Fourth_Right
Thank you for the feedback, and I do admit to being aggressive. This was my first debate here and I thought perhaps being aggressive would help my case, I will amend this for the future.
Posted by CosmoJarvis 10 months ago
CosmoJarvis
I appreciate your commentary, and I will strive to make my argument more provocative and exciting. I do admit that my argument was very plain and boring.
Posted by Political.Questioneer 10 months ago
Political.Questioneer
Gentleman this was a fine debate while both were properly backed-up with good sources used proper grammar and spelling which will remain tied. However, I will give CosmoJarvis the point for better conduct as Fourth_Right's tone came off as provocative and a little rude. It's possible I didn't quiet get it but that's the way it came off. I initially had agreed with CosmoJarvis, but thanks to the technicalities and points Fourth_Right brought up I am now undecided rewarding the the Convincing argument point to Fourth_Right. I recommend for future debate that CosmoJarvis makes his/her writing more interesting while Fourth_Rights chooses more soothing adjectives. Unfortunately I have not completed 3 debates so gentleman please take the comments and use them for the future.
Posted by Fourth_Right 10 months ago
Fourth_Right
Cosmo - good word fight, my friend!
I'm sure that you understand why I decided to be aggressive, but I'll reiterate for clarity's sake.

If you read through our discourse, Shaun kept repeating the same logical fallacy over and over again - argumentum ad populum vis a vis his dislike of my nuanced definition.
I tried re-framing my argument, addressing the issue directly, full explanation, and finally incisive rhetoric. Rhetoric such as what I finally used is less about conversion and more about trolling - as Shaun wasn't arguing in good faith.
It was meant to be cathartic, to piss off someone who wasn't interested in having a conversation but instead interested in pretending that he knows how to debate and that his argument was superior because he uses the right words.
This is ridiculous - especially on a site called debate.org.

RC-9282: I'm glad you enjoyed it - I meant Japan and other developed countries when I spoke of the first world, next time I should be more specific though. Thank you!
If you could vote, who would you vote for?
Posted by RC-9282 10 months ago
RC-9282
I was about ready to point out that you could have mentioned Japan with a negative population growth rate, a consequence of an unfavorable outlook on marriage. Their government (to the best of my knowledge) is looking either to institutionally support marriage and parenthood, or bring in foreigners to do the job. Overall I really enjoyed reading this debate. Unfortunately I am unable to vote. ;(
Posted by CosmoJarvis 10 months ago
CosmoJarvis
Fourth_right, I appreciate how well you acted during the debate; respectful and civil. However, this petty name-calling and fighting because of how Shaun doesn't agree with your opinion is unwarranted and ridiculous.
Posted by Fourth_Right 10 months ago
Fourth_Right
Not an argument, you c u c k.

I accused you, not others. You're pissing me off with your fallacious argumentation and smug self-righteousness.
Posted by ShaunTakesOn 10 months ago
ShaunTakesOn
Well that was rather childish for someone who accuses others of "kindergarten tier" tactics. I'm done here. Arguing with you is too much like arguing with one of those social justice people. Peace out.
No votes have been placed for this debate.