The Instigator
Koopin
Pro (for)
Winning
21 Points
The Contender
Marauder
Con (against)
Losing
17 Points

Christians should refrain from going to anti-gay rallies.

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
Koopin
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/7/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 7 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,178 times Debate No: 10367
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (25)
Votes (6)

 

Koopin

Pro

Before I start let me say this, I do believe that homosexuality is a sin. I also believe, unlike many Christians, that people can be born gay. The reason I believe this is because humans are born with sin in their hearts. But that is beside the point.
The votes are welcome to anyone though I need my opponent to be a Christian.
I am stating that Christians should refrain from going to anti gay rallies.

I will let my opponent start.
Marauder

Con

Thank you for starting this debate.

Koopin, you have stated you accept that homosexuality is a sin. Okay.
You know what else is usually accepted as a sin? Murder. By your reasoning murder must be as okay as homosexuality because some people are inevitably born murderer's. Seeing as all humans are born with sin in their hearts any particular sin according to you can become at birth part of the core of their being, whatever it is that defines their soul.

If murder were to become a national problem that it was just being accepted as okay and it was becoming less illegal throughout the states as they repealed their laws against it, I would expect Christians to be out their holding rallies against the lifestyle of ending other people's lives. When people start to think darkness is light, that darkness is very dark indeed at such a point. http://www.biblegateway.com...
So it is pivotal that Christians, the bearer's of light, continue to shine some truth on the matter to the people who think the darkness is in fact light.

Here the analogy is that something sinful, like homosexuality or murder, is darkness. And the good and not sinful is light. So thinking murder or homosexuality is Okay when it is not is like viewing darkness as light, making that darkness very dark indeed.

An anti-gay rally, where you take a stand with other Christians against something that would try to make the sin more okay, is one of the few peaceful methods of making the truth of the fact known to those who are very lost in that extra dark darkness. Now a single rally may not convince someone lost in that darkness that what they do is a sin and is not good for them, just like a single prayer may not seem to produce results. And this is why we pray every night for the things we choose to pray for, and it is why that same persistence in anti-gay rallies is justified.

Also, upon salvation the stain of the sin we are born with is removed, as if by Oxyclean! (But by Christ's blood) It is gone, so being saved witch is what we want for these people would eliminate their 'gayness' that they have to live with because the source you attributed it to is no longer present making the excuse no longer viable.

I look foward to your response.
Debate Round No. 1
Koopin

Pro

Thank you Marauder for accepting this debate.

In my first argument I said that I believed that people can be born gay and I stated why.
I then went on to say that it was beside the point, meaning that I do not wish to debate whether or not people can gay.
I wish to debate whether or not Christians should go to anti gay rallies.

Now I will start with the actual debate.

An anti gay rally is usually not peaceful.
There have been countless fights and deaths because of people trying to make a point.
The people who are at the meetings are not always the ones who start the fight.
Many times a homosexual will leap into the crowd and start hitting, shooting, kicking, or just start saying things that people will take offence to.
This causes people to fight back, usually resulting in someone getting injured, or someone dying.

Another reason Christians should avoid going is because homosexuals will look at Christians and see them judging.
Even if the Christian just wants to help, the world does not see it that way. They see it as a way of displaying hatred.

Think about this, if a Christian is ministering out in the streets and sees a man sitting on a bench taking heroin and viewing a porn magazine.
The Christian goes up to him and says that he is wrong and he will go to hell if he does not stop.
This will not make the drug user stop sinning, but rather give him more hate for the Christians.
Instead, why not go to the man and ask him if he wants to have a cup of coffee, or if he would like some food, or simply if you could just have a talk?
Getting to know the person will create a real true relationship.
Only then should you really talk about their problems.

So many people hate Christians because all they see is them judging. God says,
‘Judge not, that ye be not judged.'
Lots of Christians in today's world would rather bunch up with a lot of people and say that homosexuals are wrong, rather than go out into the world and talk with those who are lost.
I have friends who are gay.
I would not call them my best friends, but they are my friends.
I sometimes talk to them about their homosexuality and they listen to what I say.
I do not beat them with the bible, but rather have a simple friendly discussion.
Now what do you think will happen if my friend who is homosexual sees me yelling at an anti gay meeting.
That would destroy our friendship, and destroy all hopes of me reaching out to him.
Hate the sin, not the sinner.

I look forward to your response.

Sources:
(1). http://www.bartleby.com...
(2). http://www.foxreno.com...
(3). http://www.wikihow.com...
(4). http://dictionary.reference.com...
Marauder

Con

The ramifications of the act of homosexuality being a sin and the possibility of being born gay as facts could be viewed as pertinent to this debate on a Christians choice to 'rally' against it at all. That is why I addressed it.

First, concerning all that you said about a rally not being peaceful. I read your source about a anti-gay rally and it said there was no violence. shouting but not violence. Give me another source to back this claim and try making this point again.

Second, you speak of people thinking Christians as being judgemental. This is cause for Christians to reformat their rallies so that they do not come of this way, not refrain from participating leaving the rallies as they are.

I shall now cover your cute story.
"Think about this, if a Christian is ministering out in the streets and sees a man sitting on a bench taking heroin and viewing a porn magazine. The Christian goes up to him and says that he is wrong and he will go to hell if he does not stop."
Wow, this Christian is stupid this wont help anything. It would be better to the man why the porn and heroin is unhealthy for him in the hear and now.

"This will not make the drug user stop sinning, but rather give him more hate for the Christians."
Sometimes this is the case, but not always (if the video's Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort put together are not by actor's). People are strange the way they react differently to different methods.

"Instead, why not go to the man and ask him if he wants to have a cup of coffee, or if he would like some food, or simply if you could just have a talk? Getting to know the person will create a real true relationship. Only then should you really talk about their problems."
You Mean that inarticulate way of witnessing by example? people don't care about that, you will always only be their stupid Christian friend. If you do try talking in the articulate way with this new friend he will stop being your friend, another thing to consider. Also this fails to address that we Christians can not establish relationships with everybody. Stating your 2 cents and moving on leaving the rest to god can be applied to more people. And in this country he who shouts the loudest is considered right so that brings us back to the rallies.

You then go on to talk about being to 'judgemental' again. Michael Medved once said, "the solution to bad speech is more speech not less"

"I have friends who are gay." really? so do I. Or did rather, he's not gay now. not my doing either apparently their was a hot girl involved who is now his girlfriend. I don't know what to make of that.

"I sometimes talk to them about their homosexuality and they listen to what I say." From your use of grammar it implies they are still professing themselves as gay so clearly they do not care what you have to say. Your just their stupid Christian friend.

"I do not beat them with the bible, but rather have a simple friendly discussion." Anyone knows if you want to beat a person up you should use a canoe ore, not a book. Would you please elaborate on what would constitute as 'beating them up with the bible'?

"Now what do you think will happen if my friend who is homosexual sees me yelling at an anti gay meeting."
Why is he coming with you to the meetings? If you brought him with you here's your opportunity to demonstrate what a cordial method of talking about it with others should go like, even if the others at the meeting are not doing that. you can only control what you do.

"That would destroy our friendship" then he is not really your friend if that is how easy you lose it.

"and destroy all hopes of me reaching out to him." good cause from the scenario description your not very good, if he moves on he might have more time to meet someone who is more effective.

"Hate the sin, not the sinner." A Rally does not have to be an act of hate. If you love a drug addict, you wont leave him alone about his stupid habits. Because his continuation of this habit is harmful for him, and I don't mean because of any particular place it might one day send his soul. I would encourage the people who hold the rallies to not talk about hell as well. And I don't hold the view that all gays are going to hell one day. But the people at the rallies will not hear your voice unless you are part of the process of putting them together.

http://www.wayofthemaster.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Koopin

Pro

Thank you for posting.

Peace means free from war, strife, commotion, violence, or disorder. It does not just mean violence. Someone shouting is a clear sign of strife. Please watch video #1.

The point is that Christians won't reformat their rallies; it will continue to go on the way it is.

Your grammar is so confusing in this statement:
‘It would be better to the man why the porn and heroin is unhealthy for him in the hear and now.'
I am sorry but I can not even interrupt that. Please tell me what you mean in your next argument.

There are not many people who will hear that drugs and porn is wrong and immediately give it up. You claim that people react to different methods, this is true. But in your source, the Christian does not just walk up to someone and say that they are wrong. He talks to them.

Answer me this, would a homeless man be more willing to talk to someone who buys them lunch, or someone who will tell them why they are wrong.

You said that you have a friend who is gay, then went on to say that he is not gay now…..okay. That is beside the point
My friends who are gay do not always listen to me and turn from their sins. But even if they never realize that they are sinning, at least they can see that there are Christians that can love. I don't care about being a stupid Christian friend, they are human just as you and I, and they need love.

I do not want to beat anyone up. I am saying that I do not yell at homosexuals about going to hell and all that stuff like they do at anti-gay protest.

You are getting to technical, why would I bring my gay friend to an anti gay protest?
What I was saying is what if he sees me on the news or walks by the protest and sees me there. You know?

Okay, now after all that I will say a short thing,

Watch video #2

That lady was obviously crazy, but she got on the news. This one Christian and her rally group made a lot of people hate Christians. But if you notice, there is no violence in her rallies. Read some of these comments.

1.This is why people hate Christians. F*** these f***ing wackos
2.I hate religious nuts
3.So what, Christians think everyone who doesn't follow god is an abomination so wtf ever .

In your next debate, please refrain from nit picking at what I have to say and post your argument. Try to explain to me how these rallies show compassion and love to the gays.
Show me how the protests convert the homosexuals.
Please remember to use good grammar.

Thank you.

Sources:
http://dictionary.reference.com...
http://www.wayofthemaster.com...
Youtube videos
Marauder

Con

Nit picking huh? I was not aware I had ignored part of your argument by leaving it out, I thought I was very careful to address it all.

I apologize for the grammar, I accidentally skipped a word. looks like I've lost the spelling & grammar point unless the voter's are merciful. What I meant to say was It would be better to tell the man why porn and heroin is not good for him right now. The consequences in this life should concern just as much as the next.

You see, based on the premise that comes with Christian philosophy that God's commands are not frivolous, tedious, or pointless, they are for are for our good, we can conclude that should his will for us say to not do something then that something we should not do is harmful in some sense to us should we participate in it. Like in Leviticus God tells his people to not touch people who are declared unclean for whatever disease they might have. Today we know enough about disease to see that obeying this command kept them from catching the disease.

Yes Kirk and Ray do walk up to people and talk to them, that is sensible. I do not wish to convey that talking to people is a bad way of testifying, only that they did not become friends with the people they talked to and they consistently use the bible and its references to hell as they witness. The reactions were not all negative. Talking about hell seems to fit your portrayal of 'beating them over the head with the bible' and yet it works out for these guy's most of the time. Would you like to be more specific as to what you mean, I do know you don't want to beat people up; that was an attempt at sarcasm on my part. ;)

All this though is a little distracting from the debate, concerning the rallies.
Thank you for providing a source that showed an example of brief violence. The problem is this qualifies as the fallacy of hasty generalization. http://www.nizkor.org... Just because some rallies are conducted without taste or maturity does not mean they all do. Even if you can prove that most of them are held in such a poor manner, is that not all the more reason to go and try to change them by example?
You say that Christians will not reformat their rallies, it will always be this way. But if you and I can agree this is not way it should be done, both Christians, does that not indicate they can be convinced to grow up in the way they hold these rallies?

Talking with individuals is great, but just because that method of advocating a particular truth is good does not mean we can so easily discount the importance of a 'public' presence in our nation. Their are no other way's we can do that without holding a rally of some sort. You showed the example of video #2 that shows the media is very willing to give attention to crazy people, it is easy to make a spectacle out of such people and increase ratings. But people who act in a respectful way can hardly get any attention in the media to make that public presence. Our only option is to do something that is a spectacle in itself, hopefully in a manner that is mature and conveys the love we wish to show because that is important too. Any time Ezekiel prophesied is was in a public stunt like format that caught the peoples attention.

The Christians that are giving us a bad name at these rallies are never going to quit making fools of us even if they read this debate. they are not reasonable people. So this makes it all the more important that we fight to make sure at least on drop in bucket of the public presence Christians have is represented well, rather than let it all be taken up by crazy, unloving Christians.

One more thing, would you consider this website to be a peaceful one, at the very least in concept?

I look forward to your response.
Debate Round No. 3
Koopin

Pro

Thank you for posting.
My last post will be brief, seeing that I have already made my point.
You asked me to provide you with another source of anti-gay violence.
When I did, you called it hasty generalization.
I believe I have made my point concerning the matter. At most rallies there is some sort of strife.

You claim that the our nation will not listen to us unless we go to the rallies.
The truth is though, the media only wants stories where some action happened.
The news tries to get the negative side of the stories when it comes to being anti-gay.
Please provide me with a link in your last argument showing how an anti-gay rally went well, and lots of gay people turned from their way.

You said 'The Christians that are giving us a bad name at these rallies are never going to quit making fools of us even if they read this debate.'
I am not trying to get them to stop by reading this debate, I am saying that Christians should refrain from going to anti-gay rallies.

To answer your question, If you look at the definition of peaceful, and then look at this website, this website would not be peaceful.

Let me ask you this, you say that anti-gay rallies help.
Okay, so let's switch it up a bit. If you walk by a peaceful gay freedom rally every day, will that change your mind?
The truth is that anti-gay rallies do not make people stop being gay, all they do is give more and more people hate for the Christians.

I have made my point, therefore I will say no more.

I would like to thank my opponent for excepting my debate and not forfeiting.
Audience, I thank you for reading. Even though con has one more round to post, I believe I have already won conduct, most reliable sources, and spelling and grammar. Who had the most convincing argument is up to you.
Marauder

Con

Conduct: What did I do!? Acting like you've won already, that's condensending surely were at least tied here.
Spelling and Grammar: I skipped one word; I'm sorry man
Sources: Because you have more? there not more reliable, and one them is a source you took from me. I've added videos this round if that's what you want. these rallies don't seem to have gone too bad. In the second video it even provoked a discussion on the topic were no shouting was involved with some of the people there.
Arguments: I still have one round to go.

Its sad we did not get to the core of this argument until late in the debate, and I know that's half my fault. We spent most of round 2 different individual witnessing. But the resolution is on Christians refraining from going to anti-gay rallies.
Are we accepting we are the only ones who go there, Or are there enough non-Christians that make up the rallies for different reasons that if Christians were no longer present the rallies would still exist? If they still exist even without Christians wont everyone just assume that its the Christians that put it together anyway?
You have also confused me about what you want with resolution. So you are not just talking about the rational Christians but the bigots as well. Can those people even safely be called true Christians? If an individual Christians choice is what we concern ourselves with then we can not discount the fact that their will be hateful Christians at hateful rallies always. And with those Christians the only ones with a media public presence they will be the ones the public thinks of when they think of Christians.
You have accepted that News only wants to cover it if it had some action there. Surely that small demand can be met with some creativity without violence. The presence of a very charismatic preacher as a speaker might do, or a old cannon firing with actors present to put on a play that metaphorically shows the warring opinions on the matter and then someone sensible intervening so that opinions can be debated peacefully.
This debate website does not count as peacefully in your dictionary, and yet you approve of starting this debate to discourse a matter. Are you not afraid of making Christians look unloving because we are not at peace right now? Most who come here I would like to think accept that a strict absence of conflict is not way to go, even in the name of peace. It boils down to how we conflict, We need to be more like Goku in how we set out to do that and less like Vegeta (Dragenball Z). Perhaps DDO can even light the way for us to solve our problem on how to hold a good rally. For an anti-gay rally as shown in Video 2 easily attracts a pro-gay rally. Many enthusiastic supporters on both sides wanting nothing more than to argue it out. give them a stage and you can have a amateur debate tournament be the spectacle that we need to gather media attention. For sure many competitors will give a bad name to both sides, but some that could give us a good name will shine all the more because of it.
This of course is not being done right now. We would have to work very hard to make it happen. You are right that little good can be said for the rallies as they are right now. Many republicans are also fed up with the way the GOP is handling there party, however most accept that turning to a third party like the libitarians is not the solution to get what they want, the only way to solve is to fix the party we have right now. This likewise applies to protest rallies we are about fed up with, but the problem doesn't go away by giving up, the format of the rally must be fixed.
The only point you have left that these arguments do not refute is that the rallies do not convert gay people into strait.
How on Earth could someone ever propose to find out if they are or are not doing that? Evidently any that have converted are afraid to come out as much as Gay's who pretend they are strait are afraid. http://www.lifesitenews.com...
If the rally plays any role in a conversion its not likely to happen at the rally for us to take a survey.
Ultimately a rallies real purpose is not about conversion, its about presence of resistance to something all of a suddenly being ok. If the ant-gay are not holding rallies, the Gay's surely forever will, until the public and the politicians believe the only people who care about this issue are on the opposite side of the traditional Christian side. Even if we lose and one day homosexuality are accepted on all fronts, the history books need to read the day all the changes were happening the Christians said something, and In a desire that it reads something consistent with our teaching it needs to read we said something against it.

So in Conclusion: Something being broke does not justify abandoning it; fix it.
http://en.wikipedia.org...(Dragon_Ball)
Debate Round No. 4
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by devinni01841 7 years ago
devinni01841
"Arguments: Con, I believe that he argued his point well and many of Pro's arguments were weak to me."

Korashk: did Koopin's arguments seem weak, perhaps because you disagree?
Posted by Korashk 7 years ago
Korashk
Agree B/A: Con, people have right to protest.
Conduct: Pro, Con should refrain from using words like stupid and other negative subjective terms in reference to other individuals during a debate.
Spelling/Grammar: Pro
Arguments: Con, I believe that he argued his point well and many of Pro's arguments were weak to me.
Sources: Pro, used more objective sources, ournamestoolong, having more sources shouldn't make you give that point to either side.
Posted by devinni01841 7 years ago
devinni01841
EVERYONE should refrain from going to anti-gay rallies....
Posted by Marauder 7 years ago
Marauder
Nails posted: CON just seemed too condescending throughout the round, e.g. "Your just their stupid Christian friend."

Ohhhh.... thats where I lost conduct. I am sorry Koopin if that came off as me insulting you. that was just my cynisim toward 'freind testomoney' leaking out. I didnt mean you are stupid for being their friend, I meant I thought for being christian a non-christian would likely view you as stupid for being christian, even if they are your freind.
Again I am sorry.
Posted by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
Thanks nails
Posted by Nails 7 years ago
Nails
I voted for PRO. Ideally, I would have no problem with anti-gay rallies; we ought to be allowed to protest. However, I think PRO was pretty clear in arguing that these rallies just end in hate and violence, and that there are better means (like buying gay people lunch) to effect change. Longer RFD if necessary.

I voted PRO in conduct, too. CON just seemed too condescending throughout the round, e.g. "Your just their stupid Christian friend."
Great conduct to PRO buy the way for just rolling with the punches instead of degenerating this debate into a name-calling session, "I don't care about being a stupid Christian friend, they are human just as you and I, and they need love."
Posted by Marauder 7 years ago
Marauder
Ournamestoolong, some people say here at DDO the comment section is not for debating, but you and know better ;)

"So you purposefully included a fallacy in your argument?"
If my opponent doesnt use round one to say his argument all I can do is guess at his potential points and debate that round one. I can not guess without it counting as strawman.

"No it isn't. Being gay is completely different from murder, and you should not compare the two."
Christians have a strange of habit of saying that lying is as bad as murder, all sin is equelly sin.

"You are shunning others beliefs and exposing them to hate."
lets change the word shunning to debating and hate to confrontation and we are closer to the truth.

"So you are trying to turn a person straight. Which is what I just said."
advocating a change in sexual desire and a change in self-control are two different things. a straite person can practice abstinence despite that no one convinces them to turn gay.
Posted by ournamestoolong 7 years ago
ournamestoolong
RFD:
B/A debate: PRO, Rallies are clear signs of bigotry.
Conduct: PRO, Con insulted PRO many times
Spelling and Grammar: PRO, Con made multiple mistakes, and his argument was hard to read
Arguments: PRO, Pro successfully demonstrated that rallies are a place of violence, and are ineffective at changing gay people. See below for CON's fallacies.
SOURCES: PRO, more sources. Nuff' said.
Posted by ournamestoolong 7 years ago
ournamestoolong
"Know that, Koopin practically did not say anything. Maybe that was what he meant, maybe not. But until he box's himself in with his arguments the Straw man is what I can do to provide that opportunity. In order to refute it hopefully he will tell me what he is saying. Savy?"

So you purposefully included a fallacy in your argument?

"Of course it is, kind of my point. that is a stupid thing to say, therefore so is saying people are born gay."

No it isn't. Being gay is completely different from murder, and you should not compare the two.

"it is wrong because.........?"

You are shunning others beliefs and exposing them to hate.

"which is why that is not the task of a rally to do so. I only talked about communicating that something is wrong. Hopefully to such a degree it will matter to a gay person."

So you are trying to turn a person straight. Which is what I just said.
Posted by Marauder 7 years ago
Marauder
Ha ha ha =)
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by dogparktom 7 years ago
dogparktom
KoopinMarauderTied
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 Korashk 7 years ago
Korashk
KoopinMarauderTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Vote Placed by Koopin 7 years ago
Koopin
KoopinMarauderTied
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 True2GaGa 7 years ago
True2GaGa
KoopinMarauderTied
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 Nails 7 years ago
Nails
KoopinMarauderTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Vote Placed by ournamestoolong 7 years ago
ournamestoolong
KoopinMarauderTied
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