Does the reported "gay agenda" actually exist?
Debate Rounds (5)
the underlying intentions or motives of a particular person or group.
I do not believe gay rights activists have an underlying intention or motive. The main points I plan to stress in this debate include the following:
I am not accepting arguments from a religious standpoint.
Like the people in the comment section, I understand what the phrase "gay agenda" means, as technically all groups seeking change have an agenda. Thereby I am willing to excuse the imperfect formality for the intended implication. And as Pro, I am advocating that the LGBT community does have an ulterior agenda aside from the standard four statements you mentioned. My proposition is that the gay community is using mass media to alter public perception to gain undeserved sympathy and champion gays as an faultless citizen. I will elaborate such reasons in round two.
KaleBevilacqua forfeited this round.
May I be candid in saying that simply because an agenda exist, not all proponents of the agenda (LGBT) necessarily support or encourage the ulterior or pending ideals the group may hold or that may be held by both confidential and public persons with an influential status.
Now I wish to counter or concede your four statements.
Statement 1: Gay activism does not preach being gay...
I'd have to generally disagree. Suggesting that teachers should be legally required to tell their pre-pubescent students that, "being gay is okay", thus informing them about sexual fetishes they know nothing of. Teachers informing their students that they are homosexual in an attempt to prevent discrimination. And thirdly, it irrefutably teaches pride in homosexuality, which in today's society normally includes hyper-sexuality. It takes no skill to be a homosexual, and the skill that sexual performance does include should be confined to pornography and private encounters, not on the streets and in the schools.
Statement 2: Advoates of gays do not want special privileges.
The LGBT movement has pushed for logically inconsistent acts such as allowing individuals, including children, who feel that they are a different gender to enter the bathrooms of the opposite sex. And even good willed efforts of only for the homosexuals, such as in my school there is an LGBT center for homosexual kids being bullied (which only had 4 students) meanwhile there were literally hundreds of heterosexual kids being bullied without a designated center. And I'm sure many of them were refused the LGBT service and directed elsewhere simply because they were not homosexual.
Statement 3: Being homosexual is not immoral.
Morality is determined by many factors: ideals, religion, and many derivatives from sociology. However I am willing to tackle what I assume to your standard as well. We shall use this definition of morality--concerning or relating to what is right and wrong in human behavior. Firstly homosexual acts are significantly more dangerous than those of the heterosexual variety. Roughly 2% of the American population is homosexual yet account for 61% of the HIV infection rate. Such infections also affect the financial world as the U.S. spends roughly $12.1 billion annual payments to fight and prevent the HIV rate, which is drastically attributed by homosexuality, which is radically spread since homosexuals are much more sexual active and thereby spread their infestations on a widespread scale. All of these actions combined produce and encourage a hedonistic society that values pleasure over general welfare.
Statement 4: Gay activism is about freedom and respect.
Perhaps at its core--yes--but the core of a sphere is not the only element of the sphere, especially when dealing with non-artificial objects. This statement can be countered by this combination of my previous statements. However, I choose to refute this statement in my actual refute to the debate as a whole (not a counter to your claims). The "gay agenda" is a motion set forth by those who advocate the LGBT movement. It seeks to indoctrinate all societies, both domestic and foreign, into conforming to the hyper-homosexual hysteria. It main tool in its campaign is the use of media.
My first statement that I wish to unveil is the hypocrisy of the movement. The recent event of the launch of the move Ender's Game is a perfect example. The movie itself has absolute nothing in relation to homosexuality and does not scorn it. However many LGBT fanatics have insist on not only boycotting the movie themselves, but telling other not to see the movie as well. Why? Because the Author of the book, which the movie is based upon, is anti-gay marriage. Image if there was a rally of heterosexuals who sought to financially weaken the directors and staff of a movie almost a decade in the making simply because the writer of the book which the movie is based of is homosexual. Wouldn't that be an outrage? "Now it will be interesting to see whether the victorious proponents of gay marriage will show tolerance toward those who disagreed with them when the issue was still in dispute," states it best. This is not the only situation where the LGBT community wanted rights based from a double-standard.
The LGBT movement constantly exaggerates it's dilemmas. The kiss-ins to disrupt the Chik-fil-a franchise simply because the owner is against same sex marriage, emphasis on the fact that he used to insults to the LGBT community. What made this event in more outrageous is that fact that they were mimicking the sit-ins that the African American community had to endure to gain their civil rights, which were restrained because of their skin--an aspect that cannot practically change. These kiss-ins not only cost the fast-food chain large sums of money, but many workers were unjustly insulted by homosexuals for having a job relating to Chik-fil-a. What if a rally of heterosexuals did the same to another business simply because the CEO was pro-marriage. Would it not be slammed in the media? Where is the tolerance?
Lastly, the media has portrayed the homosexual individual to be something of an innocent angel, who gets mercilessly abused by heterosexuals. The media never, if ever--rarely, portrays a homosexual in negative light or by the their true nature: promiscuous. The LGBT agenda also seeks to indoctrinate television involving a younger audience in an attempt to promote tolerance, which has a side-effect of exposing innocent children to sexuality that they should not have to deal with nor be aware of. And the question arises, if homosexuality, why not bring tolerance towards necrophilia, insect, auto-erotic asphyxiation, and other unnatural fetishes? The answer is simple: the homosexual community wants superiority, not equal rights.
I am forfeiting because this debate veered wildly off topic.
Assuming you mean I veered it off topic, I would like to know it what manner? I began the debate in your favor as good sportsmanship and I provided arguments with correlation with your statements. If you don't wish to continue a debate because you're bored, can't compete, don't have the time or energy, whatever--fine, but don't blame fault on me.
KaleBevilacqua forfeited this round.
KaleBevilacqua forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Con said he was forfeiting because the debate had veered off topic. However it's Con's job as instigator of the debate to write a clear resolution that he can defend, and it particular be able to argue what is on topic and what is not. forfeiting is a conduct violation and leaves argments unanswered.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.