The Instigator
Dr.TurkeyBaster
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
toretorden
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points

Do you support gay marriage?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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...
toretorden
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/20/2015 Category: People
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 462 times Debate No: 82886
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (3)

 

Dr.TurkeyBaster

Con

Being gay is unnatural and goes against the teachings of God and the bible. No one is born that way.
toretorden

Pro

Homosexuality can't possibly be unnatural as it is widely common in nature. It is common in social mammals like dolphins or sheep. Male giraffes are known for generally having more gay sex with other males than heterosexual intercourse with females. And homosexuality is not only found in mammals. Species of ducks have been known to engage in very long-term relationship with same-sex partners. As a fun example of a gay pair of birds, I give you the penguins Jumbs and Kermit from Kent Zoo : http://www.bbc.co.uk...

Whether or not homosexuality is against God's will is impossible to know. I can't claim that it isn't, because that would be claiming to know what God's will is. Rather, I would like to point out that the bible is full of contradictions. This is one of the things the bible says about homosexuality :
  • "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
It seems homosexual men should be put to death. The bible also say the following:
  • All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense. (Leviticus 20:9 NLT)
  • Whoever sacrifices to any god, except the Lord alone, shall be doomed. (Exodus 22:19 NAB)
  • But if this charge is true (that she wasn't a virgin on her wedding night), and evidence of the girls virginity is not found, they shall bring the girl to the entrance of her fathers house and there her townsman shall stone her to death, because she committed a crime against Israel by her unchasteness in her father's house. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst. (Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)
So it seems we also have to kill women who are not virgins on their wedding night, those who follow other religions and those who would curse their parents. And really, this is just the tip of the ice-berg. There are a lot of people that should be killed, according to the bibe.

Still, the bible contradicts itself with the rule thou shalt not kill and Jesus doesn't kill anyone and so it seems killing has gone out of fashion by the time we get to the new testament. It is almost like a different religion. Because the bible contradicts itself, it is not a reliable means of knowing the will of God. I would say "judge not" and let God sort them out in the next life. Whether or not they are sinners, that's not something christians today hae to worry about.
Debate Round No. 1
Dr.TurkeyBaster

Con

You clearly don't know much about the bible, the killing gays is a myth made up by hateful athiests. And so what if animals are homosexual? THEY"RE ANIMALS. Animals are not people.
Homosexuality is disgusting and unnatural, it's simple as that. Gays shouldn't be allowed to be married.
The bible DOES NOT say to kill gay people, that is a MYTH.
toretorden

Pro

I've already cited the bible where it says gays should be killed (Leviticus 20:13). I might point out that the above is from the popular King James version. All you have to do is find a bible and look it up, or you could do so on the internet, like here : http://www.o-bible.com...

You can claim this passage is a myth, but then burden of proof is on you. If it's a myth, how did it end up in the bible?

Regarding your claim that animals are not people, that may be true depending on your perspective, but people are animals. The latin name for our species is Homo sapiens, meaning we are a species of animals (sapiens) belonging to the genus Homo which again belongs to the family Hominidae which we share with other great apes like chimpanzees, orangutans and gorillas. There is no profound difference in the way humans work compared to the way other animals work.

That homosexuality and homosexual behaviour is found both in humans and in other animals demonstrates that it is not, as you say, unnatural. If it were, nature wouldn't produce so much of it. And claiming that homosexuality is disgusting has no relevance. Saying they shouldn't be allowed to marry is just baseless opinion.

Your arguments are basically just shallow opinions. Not that I want to do your job for you and argue against myself, but why do you homosexuality disgusting and why shouldn't they be allowed to marry? I've yet to see a proper argument.
Debate Round No. 2
Dr.TurkeyBaster

Con

Basically you're arguing that because ducks and dolphins are gay, that humans should do it too. So you're also saying that since pigs eat where they deficate, humans should do that too, or how monkeys throw their feces, should humans do that too? Being gay is not normal among humans, God did not create us that way. You can use all the science you want, but God is the creator of humanity.
toretorden

Pro

Your claim that I am arguing that we should be gay or eat where we defecate and so on is a fallacy of the strawman variety.

And I still haven't seen any real arguments to back up your claims, merely shallow opinions.
Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by whiteflame 1 year ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: fire_wings// Mod action: Removed<

5 points to Pro (Arguments, Sources). Reasons for voting decision: Okay, this is a easy debate to pick the winner. It is obviously Pro for two reasons. The first reason is that Pro is the only one who had sources, so Pro gets the sources point. The second reason is that Pro was the only one who made an argument and also Con did not rebut any of Pro's arguments. Easily, I give this win to Pro.

[*Reason for removal*] Source points are insufficient. The voter needs to do more than just say that one side had sources while the other didn't. If one side was the only one that had sources, the voter merely needs to point to the importance of those sources in their arguments, but without that, the voter just seems to be voting on who had the most sources rather than any substance.
************************************************************************
Posted by GoOrDin 1 year ago
GoOrDin
they dumped pheromones in the water u dipshit.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by RedAnarchist 1 year ago
RedAnarchist
Dr.TurkeyBastertoretordenTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con didn't even provide a valid argument, let alone a good one. The only reason I need to vote Pro is that Pro f*cking rekt Con.
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
Dr.TurkeyBastertoretordenTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's main argument was only using the Bible. Which is NOT a credible source. Pro showed that being gay can be considered natural as that sort of behavior has been observed with animals. Pro backed this up with a source. Pro also discredit Con's source, the Bible. Pro showed how the Bible contradicts itself, by advocating the killing of people while at the same time preaching "thou shalt not kill." Since Pro's argument of homosexuality being found in nature holds more value than Con's simple argument of "the bible tells you not to," I give the arguments point to Pro. Pro also used more credible sources than Con. Pro used links from BBC, while Con only referred to the Bible.
Vote Placed by pie5434 1 year ago
pie5434
Dr.TurkeyBastertoretordenTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: The Con made no attempt to really answer any arguments as the only one answered was that killing gays is a myth but it is the con's job to prove that the resolution is not true and only claims that God is the all mighty creator while the Pro gave multiple lines from the Bible showing the inhumane lines that are presented. The Con tries to talk about how we're not animals and humans shouldn't be gay just because animals are gay. Even then, this whole animal thing is totally really off topic and since all the cited Biblical evidence goes unrefuted, Pro wins because they extend their arguments again until the 2nd to last speech and had sources. Other Notes: Humans are animals; we're mammals.