The Instigator
Freeman
Con (against)
Winning
162 Points
The Contender
twsurber
Pro (for)
Losing
89 Points

Children need to be protected from the gays and their homosexual agenda.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+14
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
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: 5/21/2010 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 10,186 times Debate No: 12102
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (129)
Votes (48)

 

Freeman

Con

The Actual Resolution: Gay couples should not be allowed to adopt children.

Gay couples should be allowed to adopt children since this is a policy that would be in the best interests of children, families, and society as a whole. Further, arbitrarily denying certain couples the ability to adopt children because of their sexual orientation is simply unacceptably detrimental to the aims of a civil society, and it is a position that is perpetuated by nothing other than flagrant discrimination. Of course, people's ignorance plays a large role in this matter. Some people have come to believe – almost invariably on bad evidence – that there is something fundamentally wrong with the minds of gay people. It's likely that many factors play into this sort of thinking, however, the point remains; many of the views people have about gays are simply not based on science, reason or empirical data. While some scientists may disagree about particular aspects of certain theories regarding sexual orientation, one thing is now universally agreed upon by the psychological and medical experts who specialize on this subject: there is nothing psychologically, emotionally, socially, mentally or morally wrong with people that are gay, and one's sexual orientation is mainly not a conscious choice. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason to suppose that gay couples should not be allowed to raise children.

C1: Evidence indicates that homosexuality is a normal sexual orientation that is not consciously chosen.

There is nothing about gay individuals that makes them inadequate parents, and thus there is no reason to suppose that they shouldn't be allowed to raise children. And despite what many deeply pious (i.e. ignorant) people may believe, there is no reason whatsoever to think that homosexual orientations are anything other than normal and healthy variations of human nature. In fact, compelling evidence and recent scientific studies from both neuroscience and psychology now confirm this notion to an astonishing degree. Indeed, many of the negative ideas that people have held over the years about homosexuality are simply unsupportable in light of the mounds of evidence that has come forth on this subject. Luckily, the evidence that is being called upon can be found everywhere. As a result, there are good reasons to suppose that the sexual preference gays hold will not negatively impact their life or character.

As it turns out, there is now compelling evidence – especially the evidence coming from neuroscience research – which indicates that a person's sexual orientation is determined in large part by the structure of their mind. For example, recent functional neuro-imaging experiments done by Ivanka Savic, Hans Berglund, and Per Lindstr�m indicate two human pheromones - the progesterone derivative 4,16-androstadien-3-one (AND) and an estrogen-like steroid estra-1,3-5(10),16-tetraen-3-ol (EST) – arouse sexual orientation specific responses that are key to activating the neural circuits of the anterior hypothalamus of those with a heterosexual and homosexual orientation. [1] To give some background information, it is important to point out that the anterior hypothalamus has been shown to be essential in integrating sensory cues that are involved in sexual behavior and sexual preference. Further, the study in question demonstrated that the anterior hypothalamus of the gay men in the experiment responded much in the same way to the pheromone (AND) that the anterior hypothalamus of heterosexual women did. Consequently, it is now fairly certain that one's sexual preference is largely involuntarily acquired, because it is not reasonable to believe that any person can willfully control the way in which their brain responds to electrochemical stimuli. If it were true that a person's sexual orientation were entirely a choice, then there should be no such correlations in the neural patterns between gay men and heterosexual females with respect to their sexual preference. Therefore, the evidence aforementioned demonstrates with much certainty that a person's mind does play a large role in determining whether that person is gay or straight. Some may be ignorant of these facts, but the evidence is clear; sexual orientation is not determined in large part by a conscious choice.

Additionally, organizations with the most educated insights on this subject such as, The American Medical Association, The American Psychiatric Association, The American Psychological Association, The American Psychoanalytic Association, The American Academy of Pediatrics, and The National Academy of Social Workers all agree on this topic: homosexuality is a normal orientation that should not be treated or viewed as a mental disorder, and sexual orientation is not a choice. [2] In particular, The National Institute of Mental Health did various scientific studies regarding homosexuality. [3] In the data that was accumulated by them, they determined that their "subsequent research consistently failed to produce any empirical or scientific basis for regarding homosexuality as a disorder or abnormality, rather than a normal and healthy sexual orientation." In light of these findings, The American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from the DSM in 1973 while maintaining that, "homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities." [3] Later on, after they reviewed the data from this research, The American Psychological Association followed suit and adopted the same view, with other science organizations following them shortly thereafter. [3] Thus, it should be obvious that homosexuality is not some sort of mental disorder that leads to adverse affects in gay individuals. Given these facts, there is no reason whatsoever for anyone to be anxious about gay couples adopting children; they are just as normal, virtuous, and well-adjusted as anyone else.

::Conclusion::

Not allowing two people to adopt a child based on their sexual preference is nothing more than an arbitrary form of discrimination. This is especially true since it is now clear that gay people's sexual preference is both normal and not subject to change. Simply put, there is no process of ratiocination, religious or otherwise, that can justifiably demonstrate why children should be denied access to the loving homes and families that gay couples can provide. Moreover, the "homosexual agenda," if such a thing even exists, is in no way something that should be opposed or feared. For thousands of years gay couples have been the victims of gay bashing (both figuratively and literally). It is, therefore, imperative that society takes steps to protect this vulnerable minority group and also insure that they have equal protections under the law. And allowing them to adopt children that need loving families will bring the world one step closer to actualizing this goal.

Sources:
1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
2. YouTube - Gay Education. YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. Web. 21 May 2010. .
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...
twsurber

Pro

First, Allow me to state up front that I have no intention of disrespecting or offending homosexuals. Further, unless there is a specific need, I will refrain from using Biblical scripture. The regulars on DDO are fully aware of my personal beliefs which I will strive to leave out of this debate. Further, I would like to thank Freeman for this opportunity.

I'll start by addressing Freeman's only contention: "Evidence indicates that homosexuality is a normal sexual orientation that is not consciously chosen". While Freeman has provided us with some very impressive stats, I can offset this contention with other equally credible data to the contrary:

"What is clear, however, is that the scientific attempts to demonstrate that homosexual attraction is biologically determined have failed. The major researchers now prominent in the scientific arena-themselves gay activists-have in fact arrived at such conclusions.

There is no support in the scientific research for the conclusion that homosexuality is biologically determined."

-- A. Dean Byrd, PhD
Clinical Professor of Medicine,
University of Utah School of Medicine
"The Innate-Immutable Argument Finds No
Basis in Science," Salt Lake City Tribune

"There is not any evidence that shows that homosexuality is 'genetic', and none of the research itself claims there is. Only the press and, sadly, certain researchers do - when speaking in sound bites to the public.

Homosexuality may run in families but you get viruses from your parents, too, and some bad habits. Not everything that is familial is innate or genetic."

-- Jeffrey Satinover, MD
Founder and Former Director, Sterling Institute for
Neuropsychiatry and Behavioral Medicine
"The Gay Gene?,"

"Studies of men and women who experienced prenatal defects in hormone metabolism have not found a concurrent increase in homosexual behavior.

Overall, the data do not support a causal connection between hormones and human sexual orientation."

-- Amy Banks, MD
Director of Advanced Training,
Jean Baker Miller Institute, Wellesley College

Nanette Gartrell, MD
Principal Investigator, The National
Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study
"Hormones and Sexual Orientation:
A Questionable Link," Journal of Homosexuality
1995

MY CASE:

C-1: Children raised by same sex domestic partners (no insult intended just ignorant of the correct terminology to use) will inevitably miss out on the opposite sexed parent. If 2 males raise a boy, the boy will miss out on natural motherly love. If 2 males raise a female, they cannot relate to all of the emotional and feminine issues that a girl will experience. If 2 females raise a boy, he will miss out on the masculine side of learning. If 2 females raise a female, the girl will miss out on having a father figure.

To grow up to be well-balanced adults, children need role models of both sexes. Boys without fathers under-achieve, especially since there are now fewer male teachers in primary schools.
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk...

Children raised by gay parents are offered only one partnership model
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk...

C-2: Children often model their parents
Any number of doctors, psychologists, psychiatrists, and even our beloved dead philosophers have found some mutual ground on this. Does this mean that a child raised by same sex domestic partners will realize that they are homosexual? There is not enough evidence to positively confirm or deny it. One thing that is certain, is that 2 females cannot produce a child, nor can 2 males. Though it is an unlikely scenario that population would decrease due to an increase in homosexuality realization, it cannot be ruled out if enough people were indeed homosexual.

CONCLUSION: Can homosexual couples (male or female) provide loving homes for children? Of course they can! Can they provide the same upbringing that a heterosexual can? Absolutely not.

Further, if we are to believe the liberal left, there is actually nothing to protect children from. Many things that were formerly considered wrong or taboo, have become socially acceptable today. Granted there will still be some degree of hazing, harrassment, and bullying; but there is reason to believe that as the former becomes more accepted into society as normal, there should be equally less resentment of it. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
Freeman

Con

Allow me to begin by thanking twsurber for his first round. While I obviously disagree with him, I'm glad to have this exchange. First off, some of my antagonist's objections can be dealt with rather quickly. For example, my opponent's apparent fear that humanity will die out (or decrease drastically) due to an increase of children becoming gay is a bit silly, to put it mildly. With that out of the way, let's get into the actual arguments.

C1: Evidence indicates that homosexuality is a normal sexual orientation that is not consciously chosen.

In my first round I argued two things. Firstly, I argued that a person's sexual orientation is biologically determined, and I gave compelling evidence from neuroscience to back up this claim. Secondly, I argued that there is nothing about gay individuals that should cause anyone to doubt whether they are good parents. My opponent has left this second point untouched, but he did say something about my first point, and I will respond to it. Honestly, I could take this issue or leave it. The crux of my case does not depend on this point being true; however, I want to set the record straight.

Despite what my antagonist may believe, not all sources are created equal. For example, Dean Byrd, PhD – a source my opponent cites – is the President of the National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), a research organization that advocates "reparative therapy". [1] He's basically a religious lunatic that thinks gay people can be ‘cured' through the power of Christianity. And the other people (Pro) cites are pretty much of the same ilk.

These people are all right wing religious fundamentalists that have made it their mission in life to cynically use their prestige as "scientists" to obfuscate scientific issues for nefarious purposes. They do not publish their work in peer reviewed scientific journals, and their work is not recognized in the actual scientific community. Moreover, they do not hold any actual positions in major scientific organizations like The National Institute of Mental Health. As such, the reports my opponent cites were created by the scientifically illiterate for the scientifically illiterate. In short, twsurber, your ‘evidence' can't possibly stack up against mine, not even on Fox News.

C1: "Children raised by same sex domestic partners will inevitably miss out on the opposite sexed parent."

My opponent's contention completely glides over the fact that millions of children are raised by a single parent. Moreover, children need people to love them. It doesn't matter if those people are gay or straight. To make this point clearer, I have made a few questions I think you should muse over, twsurber.

==============================> Cross Examination <==============================

Is it better for a child to grow up with a mother and an abusive father or two gay mothers?

Is it better for a child to grow up with a mother and an emotionally absent father or two gay mothers?

Is it better for a child to grow up with a father and an alcoholic mother or two gay fathers?

Is it better for a child to grow up with a father and a negligent mother or two gay fathers?

Is it better for a child to grow up with two straight parents on welfare or two gay parents who are both members of The National Academy of Sciences?

My point is, of course, that a person's ability to be a good parent is not contingent upon them being a heterosexual.

===========================================================================

::Conclusion::

I honestly hope you open up your mind and your heart on this issue, twsurber. Gay couples are wonderful parents [2], and children should not be barred from their love. Moreover, your current beliefs on this topic are doing tremendous damage to the world. And they really do cause people to have irrational hatreds that can sometimes lead them to commit acts of violence against gay people. Of course, the Bible inspires much of this hatred, intolerance, and incitement to violence. How do I know this you ask? Because people like you never fail to cite chapter and verse.

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 18:13

"Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." Romans 1:25-27

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10.

Truly mysterious are the ways of the Lord.

In summary, children need love, whether it's from a single parent or two gay parents. They deserve this much, and anything less than that for them is simply unacceptable. If we as a society are to ever live up to our democratic ideals, then we must abolish all laws that discriminate against people for their sexual orientation. These laws are unjust, unfair, and unreasonable. As such, allowing gay couples to adopt children is not only good policy; it is morally necessary.

Sources:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org...
2. YouTube - ACLU Freedom Files: Lesbian & Gay Parents | Florida. YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. Web. 25 May 2010.
twsurber

Pro

Freeman, Thank you as well.

Defense of my C-2. Is it a possibility, but not very likely at all. Was it silly, far fetched? Indeed, however, I have lost debates on this site based solely on semantics. Since it IS a very remote possibility, I decided to include it. Since it was not discredited, it stands.

The argument over sources again off-sets per the information I will provide below. Further, if I did not touch your second point, how could have mentioned things that I alledgedly didn't argue?

My opponent attempted to discredit my sources by stating that they were right wing biased results. What were his sources? Left wing biased results. Not enough? Let's examine the quote from one of my opponnet's sources Ivanka Savic :
me: Ivanka Savic-Berglund, MD, PhD
Title: Associate Professor and Senior Consultant Neurologist at Karolinska Institutet at the Centre of Gender Related Medicine in Stockholm, Sweden
Position: None Found to the question "Is sexual orientation determined at birth?"
Reasoning: "I want to be extremely cautious - this [my] study (Brain Response to Putative Pheromones in Homosexual Men) does not tell us anything about whether sexual orientation is hardwired in the brain. It doesn't say anything about that." http://borngay.procon.org...

Further, my opponent mentioned the American Pyschiatry Association as one of his many sources that "concurred":
Biased Studies?
Research studies, often conducted by individuals or organizations with a vested interest in the outcome, are contradictory. Studies linked to conservative political and religious groups almost never show anything positive about homosexuality and studies linked to liberal political and religious groups and/or gay support groups almost never show anything negative about homosexuality. So this means that we all have to take a step back and look at all these studies with a calm and a cool head. Though obviously being biased (since I know what the truth is from my own life experience) I still can not include any studies financed by the anti-gay religious right because for me the results are disingenuous, outrageous or even outright laughable. For example, Click Here to read about the ruse or junk science known as the Thomas Project or �€œEx-Gays?�€�: A Longitudinal Study of Religiously Mediated Change In Sexual Orientation whose principal investigators, Stanton Jones and Mark Yarhouse both worked for universities with strong anti-gay biases (and therefore had a vested interest in the outcome of the study) Wheaton College and Pat Robertson University respectively. On the other hand I have tried to weed out the studies with the more favorable outcomes to my side that seem to have some basic problems with their methodology. For example, I have not included the results of the following studies because these results could not be independently replicated by other researchers:
a) The so-called "gay gene (Xq28) study" done by Dean Hamer.
b) Post-mortem (after death) studies of the hypothalamus of the brain of homosexual males done by D. F. Swaab, Laura S. Allen, and Simon LeVay.
o
However in spite of all of the above scientific studies, according to the American Psychological Association's own website, "there is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Click Here on the American Psychological Association Website link, then scan down to the question "What causes a person to have a particular sexual orientation?" and you will find the direct quote as used above.

My opponent stated that I glided over single parent children. While that is not directly the subject at hand, I will speak to it.

Single parent children will also miss out on the contributions of the missing parent be it male or female. In the scenarios presented by my opponent, he implied that all gay/lesbian parents are model parents without fault. Is it better to have.......? That is assuming that all gay/lez parents are, which they are not.
MANY probably are, as are MANY hetero; however we cannot make this an all inclusive/exclusive. It is situational and must be evaluated on a case by case basis. Children are deserving of loving parents, and as such, careful placement MUST be paramount in the decision process.

This idea directly ties in to the suitablility and parental potential of adopting families. The various departments of children and family services do a variety of checks to ensure children are being placed in a suitable home. For example, in Tennessee potential adoptive parents complete MAPP classes (Modern Approach to Partnership in Parenting). A home study is completed on the parents individually, together, as well as anyone residing in the home. Background checks are completed. Then 2 announced and 1 unannounced home inspections occur. If favorable, then parents are considered for placements.

In the case above, parents are given information regarding the child. Can you accept a child who has (fill in the blank(s)? Parents need to know this for compatability. I will say that adoptive parents should NOT always attempt to change something about the child they are receiving. Sexual orientation notwithstanding; for example.

REBUTTAL: I will not go so far as to say that gay couples should not be allowed to adopt children. I will say that whenever possible, straight children should be adopted by straight parents; and children with homosexual tendencies adopted by homosexual parents.

As I stated, and undisputed, in Round 1, children "model" the behaviors of their caregivers. This would alleviate many of the inevitable questions that are certain to accompany such a placement. It is inevitable a child would witness public displays of affection, such as kissing. It is possible if not probable that they would also have some exposure to private displays of affection (I won't go there). They would be naturally curious to at least question if not experiment. With that in mind, it is clearly most beneficial to place straight kids with straight parents, and gay kids with gay parents.

CONCLUSION:
Contention 1: Worst case, both off set, best case mine is stronger.
Contention 2: Unlikely, but possible, thus defended. My opponent did not have a 2nd contention.
I win this debate

My opponent cited Biblical scripture from the comments section. As promised, I refrained. I was expected to make all of the concessions, and surrender my opinion. (Reminds me of my beloved Israel!) Unfortunately, the best compromise that I am capable of is listed in my rebuttal. I was attacked in print for stating my opinion, yet I did not attack. Of the 50 plus comments, only 2 had anything supportive of me. Some even encouraged poor sportsmanship. So I ask, Who was really acting the part of the bully here?

I have provided credible evidence to back my case. I have provided credible evidence to dismantle my opponent's case. Given this, I request your support in a PRO ballot.

Thanks to Freeman for a good contest!
Debate Round No. 2
129 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 91 through 100 records.
Posted by pokemonboy102 4 years ago
pokemonboy102
Still no one has come forward to argue the pro side. Everyone can continue to argue back and forth here in the peanut gallery, but if no one is willing to actually make their point and debate, I think that says more than any amount of debate ever could. Other than personal opinion there obviously isn't any support for the pro side of this debate.
Posted by Itsallovernow 4 years ago
Itsallovernow
FYI, cursing is not a sin either, my friend. Book of James Chapter 3 Verses 9-12 state something similar to: "My brothers, can a man bless the name of God with the same tounge he curses his fellow man? Can salt water flow from a fresh stream? Can a fig tree bear olives? My brothers, this should not be." The book of James gives great insight on the issues of the tounge, however, Christ does not say it is a sin, it is an impoliteness to mankind.

And you can argue the Pro side, sure enough. Will you win in the changed era? Probably not. People don't nessicarily believe the same as you and I. There are different types of Christians, just as there are different religions. I implore you to search the chapter in that where Christ himself states it's a sin and provide me with a referance, but, to my knowledge, Christ did not, and Christ is my Lord and my God, not his disciples nor any man he appoints that he does not state has direct authority over me. I will not bow to a man, I will not succum to him. Only God.
Posted by Korashk 4 years ago
Korashk
I agree with tws on the Bible's stance on homosexuality. Though that's only because I don't think that Jesus abolished Old Testament law, which is the only context where homosexuality is forbidden in Christianity. I also think that he is a hypocrit for not stoning them to death like the Bible tells him to.
Posted by twsurber 4 years ago
twsurber
Maybe "Atheism" has this thing figured out? Since there is absolutely no way to argue the Pro side, homosexuality MUST be okay. Even a homosexual chaplain that uses insults and profanity concurs.
Therefore, I must have been taught a lie! Shame on me and shame on the pastors that taught me that homosexuality is wrong! We must be the unenlightened.

It appears that I am condemned as a hypocritical hate spreader, and it is impossible to apologize. Since the first amendment obviously doesn't apply to my opinions, I think I'll just keep the rest of them to myself. Can I get an "amen" from the left?

Regardless, I am finished with this underwhelming dialogue. Y'all enjoy!
Posted by Itsallovernow 4 years ago
Itsallovernow
twsurver, you stated "It's discrimination, but it's justified discrimination." Discrimination is willful ignorance and you are therefore ignorant. I've already proved my point with Leviticus's "abomination" point. You state:
"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10."
If you just look solely at these verses, you'd see there's no hope for any of us, but YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE CONTEXT! In the "abomination" point, you did not look at the context.

You made a personal attack on me by openly admitting you ignorantly discriminated against my orientation. Do not try to retract your words, but, furthermore, do not try to convince others they shouldn't accept it. God wants us to acknowledge our sins and accept him. I have, and you should not condemn me for what I can not help. If it is a sin, I can not help it. You sin all the time; you can not help it.

However, if you accepted God as I have, you should rejoice as my brother instead of spreading hypocritical hatred and acting as though you're the right hand of God. GET OVER YOURSELF!
Posted by Atheism 4 years ago
Atheism
I'm tempted to be a devil's advocate, but I would be slaughtered as all of his points are very valid, and the pro side has nothing going for it aside from religion, and I am atheist. -Shrug-
Posted by phindegil 4 years ago
phindegil
I seem to remember some funny things from the literal text of the old testament, belonging to a religious group over 2,000 years old, not even initially monotheistic . . . Things like, oh, I don't know, men building a tower that could have reached heaven, the animal kingdom fitting on an arc, creating the world in seven days . . . OK, maybe Christians can interpret those as meaningful metaphors, that one should still listen to. But how do you turn a law or moral imperative, like that against homosexuality, into a metaphor? You follow it, or declare it outdated. And the bible is full of outdated moral laws. Do people who quote scripture against homosexuality refuse to eat the foods that the Hebrews shunned? Do they stone women who have pre-marital sex?
Dueteronomy Chapter 22 "But if the charge is true and there is no proof that she was a virgin, then they are to take her out to the entrance of her father's house, where the men of her city are to stone her to death. She has done a shameful thing among our people by having intercourse before she was married, while she was still living in her father's house. In this way you will get rid of this evil."
My point is, people hiding behind selective bible quotes and pretending not to have the ability to consider the question for themselves, as many do, is logically repugnant.
Posted by twsurber 4 years ago
twsurber
Pbplk58, Thanks for your input

Itsallovernow, I'm not sure how you decided my comments were a personal attack against you. I have not insulted you personally, yet you have insulted me a number of times. Further, I never stated that I was without sin.

I will point out some scripture for your review, if none of this applies then accept my apologies:

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Leviticus 18:13

"Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." Romans 1:25-27

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6: 9-10.
Posted by Itsallovernow 4 years ago
Itsallovernow
You're a coward, twsurber. You did not address my point. NOWHERE in the bible does Jesus Christ say that it is a sin to be homosexual. Like I said, that was a manuel for the Temple and, indirectly, a condemnation to the male prostitutes. EVEN if God says it was a sin, you have no damn right to accuse me of saying that it is worse than yours. Every sin we commit falls short to the glory of God. You lie, but sometimes you make no conscience effort not to. Everyone knows of lies, but we can not do anything about it. DO WE ACCEPT LIES? We accept them as a flaw in our mortal nature.

However, we don't expect to perfect ourselves in this. I still assert that homosexuality is not a sin, but I would hypathetically like to ask, even if it was, do you TRUELY consider this the worst of all things? You've lied, you've stolen, and, apparently, you consider yourself so high-and-mighty that you condemn others for their actions just because it's not what you want. Well guess what? You're not perfect, and until that day, don't you ****ing DARE tell me how to live my life!

"It is indeed discrimination, however, it is justified discrimination. I would take this debate if I thought judging would be fair. Unfortunately, in our morally corrupted society, practically everything is socially acceptable now. If people tell the same lies long enough, people will believe in them"

Ever think for a moment that we are people to? We all have flaws. In this statement, you don't trust in the integrity of your fellow men. Why? Because we are flawed in our moral character. Does that make us bad people? Not nessicarily. Does it makes us fall short of God? Yes. YOUR SOUL IS JUST A BLACK AS MINE!
Posted by pbplk58 4 years ago
pbplk58
twsurber: wow, that wasn't completely transparent. You obvs had no response to Itsallovernow...just sayin
48 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by darceem 3 years ago
darceem
FreemantwsurberTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Rich_Cab 3 years ago
Rich_Cab
FreemantwsurberTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Eccedustin 3 years ago
Eccedustin
FreemantwsurberTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by EuphoricTurtle 3 years ago
EuphoricTurtle
FreemantwsurberTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by frodo1995 3 years ago
frodo1995
FreemantwsurberTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by LukeSchreiner 3 years ago
LukeSchreiner
FreemantwsurberTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Hislife 3 years ago
Hislife
FreemantwsurberTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by shadow835 3 years ago
shadow835
FreemantwsurberTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by debatefreak22 3 years ago
debatefreak22
FreemantwsurberTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:43 
Vote Placed by Pandora9321 3 years ago
Pandora9321
FreemantwsurberTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06