The Instigator
kingcripple
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TUF
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points

Creating laws in support of gay marriage would create discrimination against church leaders

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 3 votes the winner is...
TUF
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/17/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,517 times Debate No: 44176
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (19)
Votes (3)

 

kingcripple

Pro

Alright, the title is pretty clear. Five round debate 10,000 characters. RD1 acceptance only. Let's see what you got.
TUF

Con

I accept the debate.
Debate Round No. 1
kingcripple

Pro

My basis for my Pro position on this is the idea that if laws (or more laws) were created allowing gay marriages, it will lead to discrimination against church leaders, thus canceling out any "equality" claims

The Christian church's stance on gay marriage is simple. It is opposed to gay marriage.[1] It is a deeply held religious belief, which is protected under the 1st amendment. For the church to oppose gay marriage is anything but discriminatory.[2]

1. Fears of lawsuits have already started

On July 15, 2013, a report was posted on church leaders changing their by laws in order to avoid lawsuits:

Joe Carr, pastor of Waynesville Missionary Baptist Church said the following: ""It"s just a matter of time. What"s happening in Europe " we"re going to see happen here and we"re going to see it happen sooner rather than later I"m afraid.
We needed to have a clear statement. It"s to protect us from being forced to allow someone to use our facilities who does not believe what we believe the Bible teaches."[3]

Another article was posted on Dec. 27 2013. [4]

The fear has already set in. Fear has been used as propaganda to achieve a certain goal for ages.[5] Far right opponents of Barack Obama and his health care initiative have used fear tactics to try to deter said initiative.[6]

What we see happening here is church leaders succumbing to fear due to instances overseas (see my next section) and changing their own beliefs strictly out of fear.

2. Gays have already started their legal attacks against the church.... and worse!

Mr. Carr cited instances in Europe where churches were sued for turning away gay couples [7] [8] [9]. What happens when this reaches America?

There was also one instance of a gay man sued his former employer (a church) for wrongful termination because he is gay. Luckily the Supreme Court upheld the church's right to fire the man citing that because it was a religious institution, it had the right to discriminate on who they hire. I could not relocate this source.

Discrimination of Christians by gays don't stop inside the church and pulpit and courtroom. It extends to otherwise peaceful protests.

What we are seeing here is not only are religious freedoms being slowly eroded away but the right to peaceful assembly as well. You can read all about it and even watch videos of these gays who are "not harming anyone" lashing out at innocent protesters [10] [11] [12] [13]

3. Ohio may have the solution

Maybe there is hope that both sides can come to an agreement to where the Church is not discriminated against.

Freedom Ohio staged a 2 day poll which indicated that Ohioans wanted gays to get married while still protecting religious freedoms. Freedom Ohio has reported as of Dec 20th 2013 that it as exceeded the 386,000 required signatures to put the Marriage Equality and Religious Freedom Act on the November 2014 ballot [14]

Perhaps Ohio has the right idea. If every state adopted a similar law, there would be no discrimination on either side, except for a select few instances.

1. http://marriage.laws.com...
2. http://carm.org...
3. http://radio.foxnews.com...
4. http://www.standard.net...
5. http://en.wikipedia.org...
6. http://www.washingtonpost.com...
7. http://www.lifesitenews.com...
8. http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
9. http://www.charismanews.com...
10. http://www.komonews.com...
11. http://www.inquisitr.com...
12. (see video)
13. http://www.lifesitenews.com...
14. http://www.lgbtqnation.com...
TUF

Con

I would like to start this round by defining “discrimination”, as I feel it is important to this debate.


Discrimination is described as the “1. Unfair treatment of one person or group, usually because of prejudice about race, ethnicity, age, religion, or gender”(1)

I’ll dissolve this definition down a bit farther in a bit. As mentioned in the comments, I feel the resolution can be played into with a bit of semantics, so as a precursor, I would like to set the above definition as the accepted definition of discrimination. Now because there are many definitions for the word out there, my opponent can easily turn around and try to use another definition. I am arguing that this is the better definition to use, because while it is simple, it encompasses the true purpose of effectiveness for both sides.

Now, to dissolve the definition, and why this one is important.

The use of the term “unfair treatment” is the particular part of this definition that makes it unique to its counter parts. This definition makes a distinct dis-association from saying racist things for example, and actually physically taking away rights from a person because of their skin color. In this example, the latter would more appropriately fit the definition I am using in this debate. From reading my opponents arguments, it’s seem like this should be the argument he as well is trying to get across, so in that regard, there should be no problem.

So prior to making rebuttals, I will make one contention specific to that which I have clarified above.

Contention #1: The impact of weighing discrimination

The way the resolution is worded, seems to suggest that if gay rights becomes legal, church leaders will be treated differently than they already have been treated. But in context to Pro’s arguments, it would seem that he feels church leaders (really just the Christian church according to his arguments) are ALREADY being discriminated against. In context, it really just looks like Pro is saying the existence of gays cause discrimination, rather than their physical right to marry. If this is the case, then Pro’s arguments do not fall affirm the resolution at all. In order for pro to properly uphold the resolution, he needs to explain why the actual passing of the law will do anything as far as “increasing” his view of what discrimination is, as opposed to what is already happening. Already, most of his arguments have lost merit, but keeping the above in mind, I will still offer rebuttals to his arguments.

But where the big problem with the resolution is, is where it recognizes the existence of discrimination, but only holds the recognition for one side. It completely dis-regards any potential discrimination in advocates for gay marriage. But because it does exist for Christian church leaders, I think it’s important to weigh the two arguments together.

Falling directly in line with the above definition, there has been unfair treatment of a group of people. Because this specific “group of people” have been denied the same rights as their counterparts namely in the Christian religion. In this regard, Christian church leaders aren’t really being “discriminated” against, as the argument outlined can only evidence discrimination as ‘being peeved that gay marriage advocates oppose being discriminated themselves and are willing to stand up for themselves’. In accordance to the definition, Christian church leaders are not being discriminated against, nor is it likely they will be by the legal passing of gay marriage. I’ll go into more detail regarding the specific portals Pro mentioned throughout my rebuttals.

Rebuttal 1: Fear of lawsuits

Because in this argument Pro specifically referenced Christian churches, I am going to assume he wishes to clarify the resolution is about the church entity, as no arguments were specifically laid out about their leaders.

Far right opponents of Barack Obama and his health care initiative have used fear tactics to try to deter said initiative.

What is the relevancy to this health care initiative and gay marriage? Also if you are saying the “far-right” are using these same tactics (IE where most church leaders align themselves), this argument seems to hurt you more than anything.

With regards to fear, saying this is a by product of gay marriage itself, is fallacious for the reason of upholding the baseline idea of these Christian Leaders own religions. The article you cited with Pastor Joe Carr quote, even had the Christian ideals all wrong in saying “being forced to allow someone to use our facilities who does not believe what we believethe Bible teaches”. According to Bible.org homosexuality isn’t always a choice and can be cured through spiritual submission:

“A. It is certainly true that most homosexuals never become heterosexual—some because they don't want to, but most others because their efforts to change were unsuccessful. It takes spiritual submission and much emotional work to repent of sexual sin and achieve a healthy self-concept that glorifies God by cooperating with Him in being transformed by the renewing of our minds.”

The bible also states:

And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor 6:11).

So why do these church leaders feel they are being discriminated against? If the Christian bible states that these churches stand by trying to cure gays of their orientation, shouldn't’t they be happy that homosexuals want to be part of their organization?

All this aside, I still find it highly unlikely that state laws will effect the religious organizations, because as you stated, religious freedom is protected under the constitution.

Rebuttal 2: Gays have started their attack

The men trying to sue, are only trying which is not evidence of discrimination. It's an unfortunate part of human nature, that people are obsessed with suing, but it happens on both sides of the spectrum. Even many Christian churches have put time and effort into the legal process.

The Mormon Church's members have contributed some $22 million into Prop 8, a vicious campaign here in California seeking to strip fundamental marriage rights from same-sex couples, making them permanent second-class citizens. (3)

Your articles do not demonstrate discrimination, until the courts pass the law, and even the articles themselves state that such legal pursuits will likely not be effective.

There was also one instance of a gay man sued his former employer (a church) for wrongful termination because he is gay.

Again, how is this discrimination against the church? The man is only trying to sue. It's success is limited with all the legal backing set in place for religious freedoms, etc. However, the man losing his job because of his orientation is a perfect example of the church being discriminative themselves according to the definition provided.

And finally let's debunk your video (I don't know why you sourced bombed 3 articles about the same incident, saying the exact same thing).

First, let's get a couple things straight. This was an isolated incident where an antagonized and threatened crowd reacted to someone who had the clear intention of causing a stir. His sign said "Repent or else" which is clearly threatening, and condescending. Gay pride event, or not, if you go directly into a crowd supporting something, and try to tell them they are sinners, your going to start some drama. So it's not like this man was innocently hunted down in some quiet suburban neighborhood for no reason.

Second, the thick man who was responsible for most of the physical violence was a 12 time criminal according to your own source (10). I can see him acting this way in a hundred other scenarios not involving gay marriage.

Third, why do you assume the "attack" was caused as an act of discrimination, rather than reacting to someone obviously and purposefully trying to start something? I am not saying what was done was right, but it's a pretty bad argument to say that all supporters of gay marriage are likely to do the same to any Christian leader simply for dis-agreeing with their ideals.

Rebuttal 3: Ohio's "solution"

I agree with this point, however I dis-agree that the religious side would have been discriminated against either way. I am all for religion keeping their own marital system "sacred" to them. However is Pro truly believes in his third rebuttal, I have a hard time finding credibility behind his first two.

On to my opponent.


Sources:

(1) Encarta English Dictionary(more specific version of this definition can be found at #2 at http://dictionary.reference.com...)
(2) https://bible.org...

(3) http://www.mormoncurtain.com...

Debate Round No. 2
kingcripple

Pro

First a clarification:

When I say "the Church", I am speaking specifically of the Church Body. That includes parishioners, deacons, elders, pastors (the latter three being church leaders). For me to use the terms "the Church" and "church leaders", interchangeably, is perfectly ok and within the bounds of the debate. My opponent is trying to deceive.

the next few paragraphs are a rebuttal to my opponent's single contention:

I agree with his definition of discrimination. I do believe discrimination is defined as he has stated: Unfair treatment of one person or group, usually because of prejudice about race, ethnicity, age, religion, or gender. Not in the case of sexual orientation. At least not in the case of marriage. In other cases, i.e., housing, and the workforce, sexual orientation should not matter. It is sad that in some cases, maybe alot of cases, it seems to be an issue. This statement alone should nullify what my opponent said about my claims that the existence alone of gays causes discrimination. In fact, I never said that anywhere. My issue is and has always been with the creation allowing laws stating that gays can be married.

To solidify this I think it is fair to define marriage. Google so graciously provided the definition: the formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife. The formal union of a MAN AND A WOMAN, typically recognized by law, by which they become HUSBAND AND WIFE. It's pretty simple, isn't it? You cannot create a husband and wife by putting together a man with another man, or a woman with another woman.

I believe a common misconception of all advocates of gay marriage and/or the gay lifestyle have is that marriage itself is a civil right. It is in fact, not a civil right. Another way I could word my opponent's definition of discrimination, with which I have no qualms about, is, "denying civil rights to a person or group, usually because of prejudice about race, ethnicity, age, religion, or gender". It is saying the exact same thing. And seeing as marriage is not a civil right, gays would not be discriminated against. However, the right to practice whatever religion we choose, is a civil right. It is stated in the first amendment.

Now I will touch on my opponent's rebuttals.

I admit there is no relevancy between the Obama's health care initiative and gay marriage, I was simply trying to explain how fear tactics work.

In regards to Pastor Carr's quote about "being forced to allow someone to use our facilities who does not believe what we believe the Bible teaches" The bible states that: "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable." (Leviticus 18:22)[1] Also, "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. (Romans 1:26-28)[2] This is what Pastor Carr was getting at. Christians believe that homosexuality is an abomination to God. That it is unnatural and not deserving of being categorized in the same as heterosexuals. Sure on the face of this, it seems that this is discriminatory, but as I showed in one of my sources, it is in fact not.[3] I will post that same article at the end of my round again.

In response to part of my opponent's first and second rebuttals

Discrimination comes in the form of ATTACKS. ATTACKS to illicit FEAR. NOT court rulings. This is exemplified by a very dark part of our nation's history. Think back to the long history of the Ku Klux Klan. They used several fear related attacks on African Americans, Jews, Catholics, and any other person they deemed necessary to invoke fear into. Everyone knows the Klan's fear tactics: Dressing like ghosts, home invasions, cross burnings (and if my 7th grade history teacher was correct, this was also a method of execution for the Klan), kidnappings, lynchings[4], just to name a few. Suing is not a discrimination, a court ruling is not a fear tactic, the fear of being sued because of a deeply held and kept belief IS a rational fear in this case, the threat of a lawsuit IS an attack to illicit fear, ergo, for the church (or church leaders if you're a stickler) to be sued in order to force said church to house a gay wedding ceremony and force a church leader to perform said ceremony IS discrimination.

Yes, the sources I posted on the PHYSICAL attack on the Christian protesting the Pride rally were of the same incident, however, that gives different perspectives of the same incident. Hardly source bombing. If it pleases my opponent I have posted a different video of a similar incident in Australia

Were the Christians instigating anything as my opponent suggests? Absolutely not! They were simply exercising their right to assembly. Was the Christian's sign a little harsh? Sure. But this was not an incident involving Westboro Baptist Church. He was in no way shape or form doing anything out of the ordinary. Simply just exercising their right to assembly. When the right to assembly is infringed upon, you are interfering with a civil right. When you are attacked for exercising the right to assembly, your civil rights are being infringed upon. Here is a video of participants in a Pride rally asking a Christian to leave. They infringed upon his rights.

In response to my opponent's inability to find credibility in my two previous contentions if I were to side with the proposed solution Freedom Ohio came up with, that could not be more untrue. To support such an addendum in a law to which there is a religious exemption to gay marriage, lines right up with my contentions. It's simple cause and effect. If the law lifts a ban on gay marriage but says any religious institution has the right to refuse service to a gay couple, there would be no need for fear of lawsuits, there would be no need for lawsuits in this type of situation.

1. http://www.biblegateway.com...
2. http://www.biblegateway.com...
3. http://carm.org...
4. http://wiki.answers.com...
TUF

Con

Contention #1: The impact of weighing discrimination


My opponent tries to manipulate the definition I provided to suit his own needs (in which case it still doesn't, as religion isn't being discriminated against).
You cannot exclude sexual orientation if you agree with the definition, as you are classifying an entire group which matches directly inline with the definition. My opponent then goes on to give a biased version of marriage, though marriage has been redefined many times since original definitions were met. Let's look at Merriam Webster:


"a(1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law(2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage"(1)


A definition, however is still only as good as the argument behind it, as I stated in R2. There are many different definitions that say many different things. But in my research, most seem to support the new definition encompassing marriage equality. Popular resources such as thefreedictionary.com(2), and dictionary.com (3) both support these definitions, as well as most of the 55 definitions in the dictionary resource. Since my opponent is source bombing, I am going to resort to it too.

Rebuttal #1: Fear of lawsuits

Next my opponent goes on to say: It is in fact, [marriage] not a civil right.
The argument behind this statement is absent to me. Marriage itself is not, but everything the very meaning of civil rights is, encompasses equality of marriage.

The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination.(5)
Everything about civil rights encompass marriage equality, even if marriage itself isn't specifically discussed.


"However, the right to practice whatever religion we choose, is a civil right. It is stated in the first amendment."

I do not recall ever disputing this.


"Christians believe that homosexuality is an abomination to God. That it is unnatural and not deserving of being categorized in the same as heterosexuals."


That misses my point entirely. I provided quotes from the bible above that demonstrate the contradictions in the bible quotes you yourself posted. To repeat one phrase in the bible while simultaneously ignoring the fact that the bible also suggests that acceptance of homosexuals in the church to try and save them is what needs to be done rather than outcasting them. In your own bible quote you fail to address the meaning behind cleansing and acceptance as interpreted in(1 Corinthians 6:11). This is largely the problem I have with organized Christian religions based on the many differing interpretations of the often contradictory book, based entirely off of contextualization. That aside, the bible itself is no impact in this debate until my opponent stands by a point behind that contradicts itself entirely.
My opponent goes on to quote an article rather than make his own argument for why "condemning homosexuality is not discriminative". While I really should be refuting his own arguments here rather than someone else's, I will address the underlying conclusion stated by the article.

"Condemning homosexual practice as a sin is not discriminatory in a legal sense, but it is one in a spiritual sense, and that is alright."

The spiritual realm of discrimination has nothing to do with this debate, because Gay Marriage issues goes into legality beyond organized religion. With that said, pouring millions of dollars into physically preventing a group of individuals from having rights, going to their rallies to call them horrible things like "sinners" etc, I am wondering why religion is being discriminated any more than you think Gay rights advocates are?

Rebuttal #2: Gays have started their attack

Discrimination comes in the form of ATTACKS. ATTACKS to illicit FEAR. NOT court rulings. This is exemplified by a very dark part of our nation's history. Think back to the long history of the Ku Klux Klan. They used several fear related attacks on African Americans, Jews, Catholics, and any other person they deemed necessary to invoke fear into.
Comparing Gay Rights advocates legal issues to that of the KKK is utterly ridiculous. The KKK made un-solicited attacks including terroristic attacks against those they opposed. However, contrary to the point you are making, the KKK is a perfect example of religious "attacks" that are equally discriminative. The way the KKK has evolved, the violence has stopped. But the ideals are still there, and guess what? They are based on many of the same Christians ideals you have used in this debate against Gay marriage advocates. Check out this video on the current KKK. (8) https://www.youtube.com...
If you go to 3:48 of the video, a KKK advocate states his belief of what will happen to whites as a race with the acceptance of blacks, even going as far as to say we will be "put in concentration camps". The arguments used here are very similar to what the resolution entails, and the underlying point my opponent is trying to prove. The acceptance of another race or culture, being the downfall of another group of people. However my opponent will not admit that religion has anything to do with this, but keep in mind, even the people in this video use their interpretation of Christianity (just as my opponent has) as justification for their movement. Interesting stuff, if you choose to look at it in light of what it is. Point is, though, that Gay marriage advocates are not like the KKK in any way shape or form. One attack from a few people in a video, that was argumentatively justified based on the behavior of the religious zealot, is not evidence that the entire group of people will be hunting down Christians and burning them.
So let's talk about "fear". My opponent admits that the act of suing itself isn't discriminatory, and says his impact is the fear behind lawsuits. But how is fear itself discriminatory, if the actions supposedly illiciting fear hold no weight? Weight in comparison the that of the Christian groups that hold 33 states against gay marriage to the 17 that do allow it? (9)
Gay marriage advocates only have weight in social/legal passing of rights state-side. You have yet to prove how any success will come about their endeavors as far as enforcing religions to change their rules. Anyone, just as your pastor can be afraid unjustifiably. But the truth is, hundreds of thousands more in homosexuality have been correctly been discriminated through the fear you speak of, because their rights have been absent for centuries. Christians have no reason to fear be sued, because they will win every time. There is nothing to suggest the individuals suing will be successful, nor do those individuals foreshadow any massive increase of further suing.
"If it pleases my opponent I have posted a different video of a similar incident in Australia"
I wasted my time watching the entire video, just to find it had nothing to do with the last video, nor did it show the violence you speak of. Did you even watch the video? The video contained a bunch of people from both sides screaming, yelling, and cheering in support of the sides they were affiliated with, and for the most part the conduct was civil. What was the point of this video?
"Simply just exercising their right to assembly. When the right to assembly is infringed upon, you are interfering with a civil right."

I haven't said that I dis-agree that the actions of those people were wrong in attacking him. That was completely not my point. My point is saying that this event is evidence that gay marriage will lead to discrimination is bogus with your reasoning. Similarly, going up to a gang of african americans to curse at them, and then getting shot because of it, doesn't mean that all african americans are violent. The action was provoked. The man beaten in that video was purposely seeking out trouble by not leaving when things were obviously getting heated. Sure he had the "right" to be there and do those things, but are you really surprised that given the context of the situation, it led to violence?
"Here is a video of participants in a Pride rally asking a Christian to leave. They infringed upon his rights."

Your use of the word "his" demonstrates that you also didn't watch this video, as it was clearly a woman. This video was also a waste of my time, because you just got done saying a group has a right to assemble, and the group had every right to ask the woman to leave the event. Though if you listen to what the woman says, it seems like she may have been lying or exaggerating, as she said she was told to leave, but also said she was free to walk around and discuss with those willing to talk to her about it @ 2.28 of the video ;-)
If I go to a church and try preaching that gay marriage is okay, the bible is completely flawed, and that all Christians are horrible people, I might just get asked to leave too.
Back to my opponent.

Sources:
(5)http://www.thefreedictionary.com...(see also civil rights)
Debate Round No. 3
kingcripple

Pro

I in no way tried to manipulate my opponent's definition. Race, age, ethnicity and gender are all things you cannot choose. You can change your gender, but you can not choose which gender you are born with. My opponent will surely try to dispute this and manipulate anyone who is reading this, but let's make this clear YOU cannot choose YOUR own gender from birth. With all the medical advances these days your parents may be able to, but YOU cannot. He may even use a source like this[1] to manipulate and deceive like he tried when he disputed and accused me of deviating from the debate topic by using "Church" and "church leaders" interchangeably. I say all this because we need to understand that there is a clear difference between race, ethnicity, age and gender from that of sexual orientation when determining what qualifies as discrimination. [2] There is no conclusive evidence that one is born gay. Why my opponent insists on harping on his lone contention is beyond me. In continuing to doing all this, my opponent repeatedly commits what is called a category mistake.[3] Essentially, he is comparing apples and oranges. There ARE cases where discrimination is perfectly OK. If you were hiring someone to oversee an after school program or a teacher, would you really consider hiring a pedophile? Again it is important to understand I am NOT comparing homosexuals to pedophiles. Discrimination against religious beliefs is unconstitutional, discrimination against a chosen sexual orientation

My opponent also resorts to accusation attacks by claiming I was "source bombing". I never did. There really is no such thing as source bombing, vote bombing, etc.

"Next my opponent goes on to say: It is in fact, [marriage] not a civil right.
The argument behind this statement is absent to me. Marriage itself is not, but everything the very meaning of civil rights is, encompasses equality of marriage."

This makes no sense at all.

My opponent, unsurprisingly, misses the point of 1 Cor 6:11 entirely. The sin is forgiven, washed away in a sense, however turning from sin is also a very important. Consider Acts 17:11, "Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true."[4] Receiving the message of what qualifies as sin and turning from sin is of the utmost importance. In merely saying that the bible contradicts itself shows my opponent does not have an understanding of the bible and thus is in no place to argue about its contents. He basically has contradicted himself.

" I am wondering why religion is being discriminated any more than you think Gay rights advocates are?"

My opponent not only has no knowledge of the bible, but current events as well. [5] Persecution of Christians happens all over the world. In China[6] In the middle east[7]. Two friends of mine, Nolan Dean and Steve Hussman, also trekked to Turkey in 2009 to make a documentary about discrimination of Christians in Turkey[8]

I was in no way comparing gay rights advocates to the KKK. I was merely explaining how discrimination works through usage of fear. Seeing as my opponent chose to again attempt to deceive by saying I was equating gay rights advocates to the KKK, shows that he missed the point completely.

"I wasted my time watching the entire video, just to find it had nothing to do with the last video, nor did it show the violence you speak of. Did you even watch the video? The video contained a bunch of people from both sides screaming, yelling, and cheering in support of the sides they were affiliated with, and for the most part the conduct was civil. What was the point of this video?"

The gay rights advocates instigated the confrontation, however, as you see the Christians were not violent unlike the gay rights protesters in the first video I posted, which once again makes your argument irrelevant. But it does lead me to my next point:

"Sure he had the "right" to be there and do those things, but are you really surprised that given the context of the situation, it led to violence?"

Absolutely! The guy was standing there with a sign. Probably the least violent action one can take outside of sleeping. It was the gay rights advocates who attacked him. As you see, he didn't even try to fight back. It does not matter if one of them or all of them had a history of criminal activity. Attacking someone physically, outside of protecting oneself from potential physical harm, is never ok.

"Your use of the word "his" demonstrates that you also didn't watch this video, as it was clearly a woman."

This is completely irrelevant. It is normal for one to use "his" or "her" in a neutral sense. It happens alot. This is just another attempt to deceive[9]

1. http://www.babycenter.com...
2. http://carm.org...
3. http://carm.org...
4. http://www.biblegateway.com...
5. http://en.wikipedia.org...
6. http://www.breitbart.com...
7. http://www.persecution.org...
8. http://www.nrbnetwork.tv...
9. http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...
TUF

Con

Rebuttals

He may even use a source like this[1] to manipulate and deceive like he tried when he disputed and accused me of deviating from the debate topic by using "Church" and "church leaders" interchangeably.

No deviation was committed or intended. I was responding based on your contextualization and loose verbiage, but from the direction you are taking this debate it seems like church leaders aren't the isolated topic here. If they are, this is very harming to your side, as you have been adamantly arguing about the (non specific assumed Christian) church itself as opposed the leaders there-in. Also citing a source not used for valid contention of your arguments, or a direct argument that I made or showed any intention of making, is a clear attempt at source-bombing. But in direct response to that, you cannot choose your sexual desires either, meaning that if choice is a valid argument in this discussion, you have once again harmed your case.

There is no conclusive evidence that one is born gay.

Nor have I said there is, but that also doesn't go on to prove that they aren't as well, in which as the instigator of this premise, you hold the BOP. In any regards, you just stated that one's choice is important, regardless of how they are born. If this is the case, you should be all for legality of gay marriage.

Essentially, he is comparing apples and oranges. There ARE cases where discrimination is perfectly OK. If you were hiring someone to oversee an after school program or a teacher, would you really consider hiring a pedophile?

In saying that discrimination is okay, you forget that I also didn't say discrimination was unanimously not okay. Weighing discrimination is comparing apples to apples perfectly in this equation, as the underlining point is discriminating homosexuality IS wrong. Because pedophilia is viewed as wrong by most of society while homosexuality isn't, the debate goes on to establish why denying a group of equal people rights is more important than not? Such are questions that have been addressed multiple time in this debate.

My opponent also resorts to accusation attacks by claiming I was "source bombing". I never did. There really is no such thing as source bombing, vote bombing, etc.

Source bombing is intentionally using necessary sources that aren't of specific or neccesary use to the argument, to build an appearance of more credibility and references. You specifically cited three articles about the same thing, all saying the same thing. You posted videos and articles that contained information that worked contrary to your own points, which shows that you maybe saw the title, read the description, and posted it without knowledge of the context of the actual events. This is source bombing at it's core. Source and vote bombing are terms created for use on this website, and are procedures that are recognized by some of the more active debaters. With that said, whether the voters will view this as a conduct or source violation is completely up to them.

This makes no sense at all.

Read the civil rights, and then re-read what I said. Maybe it will make more sense to you. (10)

My opponent, unsurprisingly, misses the point of 1 Cor 6:11 entirely. The sin is forgiven, washed away in a sense, however turning from sin is also a very important.

According to bible.org, gays should be accepted into the foundation so that the turning of that sin is even possible. By casting them out, you are taking an [expletive] on Christian ideals.

Receiving the message of what qualifies as sin and turning from sin is of the utmost importance.

So you should agree that gays should be invited into the church, so that they can be taught that message and be cured of their sin. According to the original quote, that is not the intention of Pastor Carr.

In merely saying that the bible contradicts itself shows my opponent does not have an understanding of the bible and thus is in no place to argue about its contents. He basically has contradicted himself.

This statement is without an argument for justification, therefore irrelevant.

My opponent not only has no knowledge of the bible, but current events as well. [5] Persecution of Christians happens all over the world. In China[6] In the middle east[7].

Articles 5-8 do not show discrimination through gay marriage, and are largely irrelevant. In fact the discrimination in every single source, mainly cites discrimination from countries with pre-dominate RELIGIONS already in place. Religion is being discriminated by other religions, in which case I don't really have to care.

Seeing as my opponent chose to again attempt to deceive by saying I was equating gay rights advocates to the KKK, shows that he missed the point completely.

I did not say that you were equating gay rights to the kkk. Stop saying that I am trying to "deceive" you are starting to sound silly lol. No I got the point, addressed it, and decided to use your example in a different way against you concerning the Christian mindset. You actually dropped that entire argument.

The gay rights advocates instigated the confrontation, however, as you see the Christians were not violent unlike the gay rights protesters in the first video I posted, which once again makes your argument irrelevant. But it does lead me to my next point:

Watch the video again lol. The Christians actually started the "confrontation". They were standing on the steps shouting their opinion to the world. The Gay rights advocates came back and did the same thing non-violently. Again, this evidences that you didn't actually watch your own video.

Absolutely! The guy was standing there with a sign. Probably the least violent action one can take outside of sleeping. It was the gay rights advocates who attacked him. As you see, he didn't even try to fight back. It does not matter if one of them or all of them had a history of criminal activity. Attacking someone physically, outside of protecting oneself from potential physical harm, is never ok.

A few things wrong with this. The guy's side said something threatening. Yes, saying "repent or else" is a direct threat. If I followed you around with a sign that said "let me take your sister to bed... or else..." you would have a reason to be pissed off at me too. However, that is still not the issue. The issue is that a man with a criminal history of violence instigated the physical attack, and he or anyone else there shouldn't be the representative for an entire group of individuals.

However, in this article (11) a pastor and a bunch of deacons attacked a gay couple in largely the same way that happened to the christian in your video. Equally if I wanted to source bomb every instance of gay victims of religious violence, I could. The point is, that a few individuals do not make up an entire culture of people.

This is completely irrelevant. It is normal for one to use "his" or "her" in a neutral sense. It happens a lot. This is just another attempt to deceive.

Okay, but you didn't respond to the rest of the argument, so I am led to believe you agree that the woman lied/ exaggerated, and that the group was justified in booting her out non-violently.

Sources:

(10) http://www.hhs.gov...
(11) http://thenewcivilrightsmovement.com...

Debate Round No. 4
kingcripple

Pro

My opponent takes my arguments out of context so much it's frankly kind of sickening. This is a clear attempt to manipulate votes away from perfectly good arguments I have made. Of course, he is doing this under the assumption that the majority of the votes he would get would be from people who are biased towards his position, which makes the decision to manipulate readers/voters even more confusing and troubling. Here are his latest offenses on this and you, the reader can see for your self:

"He may even use a source like this[1] to manipulate and deceive like he tried when he disputed and accused me of deviating from the debate topic by using "Church" and "church leaders" interchangeably.

No deviation was committed or intended. I was responding based on your contextualization and loose verbiage, but from the direction you are taking this debate it seems like church leaders aren't the isolated topic here. If they are, this is very harming to your side, as you have been adamantly arguing about the (non specific assumed Christian) church itself as opposed the leaders there-in. Also citing a source not used for valid contention of your arguments, or a direct argument that I made or showed any intention of making, is a clear attempt at source-bombing. But in direct response to that, you cannot choose your sexual desires either, meaning that if choice is a valid argument in this discussion, you have once again harmed your case.

There is no conclusive evidence that one is born gay.

Nor have I said there is, but that also doesn't go on to prove that they aren't as well, in which as the instigator of this premise, you hold the BOP. In any regards, you just stated that one's choice is important, regardless of how they are born. If this is the case, you should be all for legality of gay marriage.

Essentially, he is comparing apples and oranges. There ARE cases where discrimination is perfectly OK. If you were hiring someone to oversee an after school program or a teacher, would you really consider hiring a pedophile?

In saying that discrimination is okay, you forget that I also didn't say discrimination was unanimously not okay. Weighing discrimination is comparing apples to apples perfectly in this equation, as the underlining point is discriminating homosexuality IS wrong. Because pedophilia is viewed as wrong by most of society while homosexuality isn't, the debate goes on to establish why denying a group of equal people rights is more important than not? Such are questions that have been addressed multiple time in this debate. "

What my opponent has done here is called cherry picking. He takes select parts of an argument and manipulates and twists them to suit his own needs, wants and desires.

"But in direct response to that, you cannot choose your sexual desires either, meaning that if choice is a valid argument in this discussion, you have once again harmed your case. "

While I agree that sexual desire is not necessarily chosen, it is the acting upon such desires that is chosen. In a source I cited in my previous round, this is illustrated. No harm was done to my case because of this fact. Example: You can have a predisposition to anger, perhaps expressing it in violent ways, but in knowing it is wrong you can chose not to act upon it. This is a paraphrase of Rick Warren in an interview with Piers Morgan, which can be found here[1]

This just furthers my case that there is a difference in the discrimination of race, ethnicity, age, gender etc and sexual preference.

More misrepresentations:

"My opponent, unsurprisingly, misses the point of 1 Cor 6:11 entirely. The sin is forgiven, washed away in a sense, however turning from sin is also a very important.

According to bible.org, gays should be accepted into the foundation so that the turning of that sin is even possible. By casting them out, you are taking an [expletive] on Christian ideals.

Receiving the message of what qualifies as sin and turning from sin is of the utmost importance.

So you should agree that gays should be invited into the church, so that they can be taught that message and be cured of their sin. According to the original quote, that is not the intention of Pastor Carr."

Actually my opponent has also taken these things out of context. Here is where we seem to agree: gays should be invited into the church so they can be taught a message of repentance and forgiveness and be able to turn away from their sin. Now here is the misrepresentation and out of context happens: performing a marriage ceremony for a gay couple goes against what they (the church, church leaders) believe and validating what they view to be sin as something that is right and good does not in anyway shape or form teach a message of repentance or forgiveness and does not encourage one to turn away from their sin.

In merely saying that the bible contradicts itself shows my opponent does not have an understanding of the bible and thus is in no place to argue about its contents. He basically has contradicted himself.

This statement is without an argument for justification, therefore irrelevant."

Again, my opponent resorts to cherry picking.

"My opponent not only has no knowledge of the bible, but current events as well. [5] Persecution of Christians happens all over the world. In China[6] In the middle east[7].

Articles 5-8 do not show discrimination through gay marriage, and are largely irrelevant. In fact the discrimination in every single source, mainly cites discrimination from countries with pre-dominate RELIGIONS already in place. Religion is being discriminated by other religions, in which case I don't really have to care. "

I have no clue what silliness my opponent is doing here. Regardless, I was giving examples, extreme examples, of how Christians are discriminated against. My opponent wants to "weigh the impact of discrimination", which I felt was a largely silly contention from the start. He didn't do a very good job of stating that case, none the less I suppose he was trying to make claims that Christians are not discriminated against at all, or at least not as much as gays. I was merely proving the opposite.

There are several other things in my opponent's arguments that I could debunk, but I am running out of room and there is one thing in particular that I wanna point out:

"Absolutely! The guy was standing there with a sign. Probably the least violent action one can take outside of sleeping. It was the gay rights advocates who attacked him. As you see, he didn't even try to fight back. It does not matter if one of them or all of them had a history of criminal activity. Attacking someone physically, outside of protecting oneself from potential physical harm, is never ok.

A few things wrong with this. The guy's side said something threatening. Yes, saying "repent or else" is a direct threat. If I followed you around with a sign that said "let me take your sister to bed... or else..." you would have a reason to be pissed off at me too. However, that is still not the issue. The issue is that a man with a criminal history of violence instigated the physical attack, and he or anyone else there shouldn't be the representative for an entire group of individuals.

However, in this article (11) a pastor and a bunch of deacons attacked a gay couple in largely the same way that happened to the Christian in your video. Equally if I wanted to source bomb every instance of gay victims of religious violence, I could. The point is, that a few individuals do not make up an entire culture of people."

When he says "the guys side said something threatening. Yes, saying 'repent or else' is a direct threat", first I believe my opponent meant sign, not side, second, I doubt my opponent even remotely knows what is meant by "repent or else". Does it mean

A. The man holding the sign will do something?

B. The man has a group of people that are waiting in the wings to do something?

C. That the man is referring to God's Judgement and what God will do in response to the gays not turning from their sin?

If you guessed C, you are correct.

The "or else" part of the sign is indirect, not direct. My opponent has mistaken an indirect threat for a direct threat.

Furthermore, my opponents last sentence "The point is, that a few individuals do not make up an entire culture of people." is counter intuitive to his case. He has spent a portion of each of his rounds trying to convince that the entire Christian community is a vile hate mongering community. That sentence above he made contradicts each argument he made supporting his claim that Christians are more discriminatory than gays, which isn't even what the debate is about.

In summation, my opponent has clearly tried to deceive and manipulate me as well as anyone who would read this. He tried flipping the debate around to suit his needs in order to attempt to make better arguments for himself. He took my arguments out of context and cherry picked. I took the bait, but yet he failed to successfully negate any of my arguments. He turned the debate into who was being discriminated more and did not even try to prove how laws in support of gay marriage would not be discriminatory to church leaders. I hope this is taken note of.

Regardless of his underhanded tactics, I thank my opponent for engaging me in this debate
TUF

Con

I will state my conclusion in this round, because my opponent cannot respond to rebuttals.

A lot of things were said last round that were wrong and manipulative, however I think the voters will come to that conclusion there selves.

I responded to all my opponents arguments in a fair way, and argued the debate exactly the way he as pro with the burden of proof argued.

Conclusion



So at the end of this debate, we can weigh several things into the factoring of our determining how we decide on this resolution.

1. What is the impact behind the resolution? My opponent made a great point saying that discriminating pedophiles is not considered negative behavior. So there is a certain impact behind how we discriminate. That said, in the last round my opponent also said that I took this debate out of context. In the end, the point still proves exactly what my opponent was trying to say when he said the bit about pedophilia. Why care about religion being "discriminated" against, when most of the time they are the ones behind the discriminating themselves?

2. The bible says to help and attempt to cure all. My opponent has countered with many bible quotes, while saying that I have a lack of understanding of the bible myself. But he never went on to dispute the interpretation of Bible.org, which seemed like a fairly good Christian Justification from an established Christian organization. In many of the ways that Christians may feel they will be discriminated against, they could completely do without by accepting homosexuality into their establishments while attempting to cure them. This works against Pastor Carr's ideals however.

3. Violence and protests are not a reason to assume that religion will be widely discriminated against. This is a very loose point, with a lot of stretching behind it. A few people do not make up an entire group of people, same goes for Christianity. That said, a lot of the sources and videos provided were very horrible examples of "discrimination" itself.

There is a lot of the blame game that goes on in these types of social issues on the other party. But realistically, are Christians getting discriminated against as a whole? No. When they have more rights (and probably always will) over the individuals they think they are being discriminated against, it seems silly to make such statements. Because church leaders themselves were not brought up at all by my opponent though, I am left standing in negation of the resolution, as I feel there is no substantial reasoning to think that church leaders themselves will be discriminated against.

Thankyou.
Debate Round No. 5
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Lucassamson 2 years ago
Lucassamson
Am new,how do I send messages
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
My suggestion to avoid the error which cost the S&G, is to style quoted text different than your own words (in addition to just using quotation marks); stylized text reads differently, thus even if the quotation marks were missing on stylized, the missing marks might not even be noticed. ... There's a rich text button just above the argument text box.

When I debate I underline my headings, bold the words of my opponent, and italicize quotes from sources.
Posted by progressivedem22 3 years ago
progressivedem22
They very well may be, though I highly doubt you could find the same degree of bias I found on Breitbart and Fox. Also, I'm not participating in a debate at this very moment, while you are.

Report all you'd like. I knew you would, to be honest. The vote was honest. I recall you telling someone else who disagreed with your vote to deal with it -- this vote was, by all means, honest. I said nothing that others weren't already saying, save for the sources, which I have thoroughly proved.

Anyway, you've been trash-talking me since our debate ended, which I can't understand since you were the one at fault. You were the one who changed the topic after the debate had already begun, and even the voters agreed with me. I resisted the urge to respond to you so many times. Frankly, I didn't even tell you what I thought of your arguments -- I don't have enough time for that.
Posted by kingcripple 3 years ago
kingcripple
Those are biased too!

Nonetheless, Oppressivedem's vote was reported for votebombing
Posted by kingcripple 3 years ago
kingcripple
oh wow oppressivedem vote bombed. not surprised
Posted by progressivedem22 3 years ago
progressivedem22
"Oppressivedem?" That's a good one.

You realize that Fox and Breitbart have literally ran with Onion parody stories, right? The right-wing slant is obvious.

I happen to like facts, hence I don't use these sources. That's all.
Posted by TUF 3 years ago
TUF
Lol and the attacks begin again
Posted by kingcripple 3 years ago
kingcripple
Ragnar- Please do read it. Just be aware that TUF will report you for voting against him if you do

Oppressivedem- With the exception of Wiki Answers, on what authority do you have that any other sources I cited are not credible? Being oppressive maybe?
Posted by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
I might have to read this one, just to find out how it is proposed to cause discrimination against an usually unrelated group to the issue (assuming church leaders have not started joining into gay marriages).
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by iamanatheistandthisiswhy 3 years ago
iamanatheistandthisiswhy
kingcrippleTUFTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate was a long read and disappointing as Pro ignored the resolution of the debate. This makes no sense as its was Pros resolution. Con did a good job showing what was wrong with the fallacies in Pros arguments. However, the points for arguments are not going to Con for that reason which would be justified. They are rather going to Con as Pro did not meet the burden of proof. All other points are shared.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
kingcrippleTUFTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: S&G: please make it clear when you are quoting someone, even accidental plagiarism of your opponent can be an auto lose. CONDUCT: Shaky ground, but leaving tied. ARGUMENT: Kinda surprised the Pope being the true church leader, was not a cornerstone to this... Pro conceded at the end of R2 and R3, that gay marriage can be legalized without causing discrimination against church leaders (via a clause in the law to not force anyone to be involved in someone else's marriage). He agreed with a definition, then argued against it via changing the wording on the definition. A good amount of shifting the goalpost fallacy (church members in general, instead of church leaders). Other highlights "a clear attempt to manipulate votes away from perfectly good arguments" welcome to debating, trying to get people to not vote for the other side is pretty essential to victory. SOURCES: Con actually caught pro having not watched one of his videos, however that is already factored against arguments.
Vote Placed by janetsanders733 3 years ago
janetsanders733
kingcrippleTUFTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This was kind of a tough one, as it was a little confusing. I think based upon arguements given by Con, he showed how discrimination wouldn't really happen if Same sex laws were made. I want to say good job to both debaters.