The Instigator
Justin-L
Pro (for)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
Dazedinday
Con (against)
Losing
5 Points

Gay Marriage/Rights

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/19/2011 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,613 times Debate No: 14434
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (22)
Votes (7)

 

Justin-L

Pro


Gay Marriage/Rights have been a huge topic of debate within our country recently. In this debate, I will be PRO or for Gay Rights and my opponent will be CON or against Gay Rights. Each of us will give our arguments and counter-arguments as to why Gay Rights should/should not be allowed. Religious arguments are allowed. I will allow my opponent to make the opening argument.
Dazedinday

Con

I accept your challenge, and in this debate, I shall be the contender of this debate. Where as you will 'allow' me to make my opening statements, I will simply not. However, I will condition a few things.

- Gay marriage refers to the same sex marriage, where as I will simply say SSM to refer to such. Also, gay refers only to men, so the word usage is limited. I will be against SSM, which refers to both gay and lesbian.
- Religious arguments will hold the same value as any other arguments.
- [1] Genetics will refer to the effects of genome, which arbitrarily is confused with the academic branch of science.
- [2] Religious will refer to religion in general. Arguments from any text of the listed religion next to this will be valid. (Christianity, Islam, Jewish, Bahai, Hindu, Buddhism, Confucianism)

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...; (definition #2)
[2] http://dictionary.reference.com...; (definition #1)


Resolve: SSM should not be allowed.

Debate Round No. 1
Justin-L

Pro

Very well. These conditions shall apply to the debate.


SSM should be allowed, because there is no valid reason not to allow SSM.
Dazedinday

Con

"SSM should be allowed, because there is no valid reason not to allow SSM."

But first, we must see what valid really is. Philosophically speaking, there is nothing that is truly valid. We only question, and we 'decide' what is valid. Corrected: there is nothing that is inherently valid. In that sense, what we must see is that in a utilitarian sense, allowing SSM is not a very good choice. Here are the reasons why.

Rights
Often or not, once a right is given, the right leads to another right. In a sense, when accepting SSM, we are accepting homosexuals into our society. Most argue they do not care of, and will allow homosexuals if they don't get in their 'eyes'. That argument will most certainly be ablast when homosexuals start demanding the right to be public, the right to express their love for each other, and so on. Nobody, not even homosexuals wants to be segregated, and no one wants to be chained.
But if homosexuals do indeed get their freedom, many heterosexuals may find it repulsive, and that is not for the greater good. Because we're sacrificing the many for the few. Even though we are taught to uphold even the minority, this just isn't the 'valid' way to speak our generosity.

Genetics does not solely contribute to homosexuality
Source: http://www.narth.com...
Homosexuality is actually the result of a very complex process of social system around the person leading to the state of being 'homosexual'. In that sense, it is a social disease, that can possibly be cured through psychological procedures. And, it gets rid of the argument of 'born that way, and because of it, it is okay'.

Dillema

If, and if by any chance the cause of homosexuality was actually genetic, and a genetic procedure was developed that would 'turn' the homosexuals 'normal'. A love for same-sex will not be the same love once someone starts being heterosexual. In a sense, the once homosexual couple might find it repulsive to think they ever were like that.
Likewise, even if the cause of homosexuality wasn't genetic, but if a hormonic/psychological procedure was developed to rid of homosexuality, one would end up in a dillema of whether to or not to proceed. In a sense, utiltarian point of view comes in. Still, the vast majority are not homosexual. Most when they say are okay, have no idea what they're talking about.

Religion

http://factsanddetails.com...
In confucianism, it deals with beliefs of 'well-ordered world'. In order to have order, they sought to have proper and well-coded social relationships with people. Their belief was that that order was natural, and the relationships have meaning. And in one of their 'five virtues', there was the relationship between man and woman, that man and woman had a natural duty to mate. It takes from the philosophy of social piety, which revolves around 'well order'. It also closely relates to utilitarian, which strongly disagree with SSM.

In conclusion, there are some things we must sacrifice for our own good. Our future will be a better future without SSM, and that is if not a fact, the truth.

Debate Round No. 2
Justin-L

Pro

1. Rights)
My opponent says:
"Often or not, once a right is given, the right leads to another right. In a sense, when accepting SSM, we are accepting homosexuals into our society. Most argue they do not care of, and will allow homosexuals if they don't get in their 'eyes'. That argument will most certainly be ablest when homosexuals start demanding the right to be public, the right to express their love for each other, and so on. Nobody, not even homosexuals wants to be segregated, and no one wants to be chained."

Well, whether you like it or not, homosexuals are in our society. But allowing SSM does not force you to accept homosexuals. Even without allowing SSM you still cannot discriminate against someone because they are a homosexual. All allowing SSM does is give homosexuals the right they deserve. And homosexuals already have the right to be publicly homosexual, and express their love for each other. They've never been deprived of those rights.

My opponent says:

"But if homosexuals do indeed get their freedom, many heterosexuals may find it repulsive, and that is not for the greater good. Because we're sacrificing the many for the few. Even though we are taught to uphold even the minority, this just isn't the 'valid' way to speak our generosity."

We had the same issue with the Civil Rights Movement. Many whites were disgusted that blacks were allowed the same freedoms as them. But now almost 50 years later, the vast majority of people are completely fine with races other than their own. Yes, many heterosexuals will be outraged with SSM in place. But give it time and it will just transform into the blacks and whites relationship of today. Yes, there will always be those who strongly dislike homosexuals but that's with every ethnic, religious, political... group.

2. Genetics does not solely contribute to homosexuality)

My opponent says:

'Homosexuality is actually the result of a very complex process of social system around the person leading to the state of being 'homosexual'. In that sense, it is a social disease, that can possibly be cured through psychological procedures. And, it gets rid of the argument of 'born that way, and because of it, it is okay'."

I personally believe that there will never be a way to absolutely prove or absolutely disprove that homosexuality is genetic. However, not only are there literally hundreds of studies displaying strong evidence for the argument that homosexuality is genetic, all homosexuals (except for perhaps a handful) say that they didn't choose to be homosexual. There is also evidence in the homosexual suicide rate, which is much, much higher than the heterosexual suicide rate. What about all those homosexual children whose deaths have been floating around the news? In most of their suicide notes they admitted to having been bullied and abused at school for being homosexual and that was their main reason for suicide. If you could just switch your sexuality with the snap of your fingers, why didn't those children do that? Why couldn't they just be heterosexual? Because it isn't a choice. You can't decide your sexual orientation, no more than you can decide if your male or female.

3. Dilemma)

My opponent says:

"If, and if by any chance the cause of homosexuality was actually genetic, and a genetic procedure was developed that would 'turn' the homosexuals 'normal'. A love for same-sex will not be the same love once someone starts being heterosexual. In a sense, the once homosexual couple might find it repulsive to think they ever were like that.
Likewise, even if the cause of homosexuality wasn't genetic, but if a hormonal/psychological procedure was developed to rid of homosexuality, one would end up in a dilemma of whether to or not to proceed. In a sense, utilitarian point of view comes in. Still, the vast majority are not homosexual. Most when they say are okay, have no idea what they're talking about."

I apologize, but I'm not sure what point your trying to make with this argument. Please forgive me, but I have no response.

4. Religion)

My opponent says:

"In Confucianism, it deals with beliefs of 'well-ordered world'. In order to have order, they sought to have proper and well-coded social relationships with people. Their belief was that that order was natural, and the relationships have meaning. And in one of their 'five virtues', there was the relationship between man and woman, that man and woman had a natural duty to mate. It takes from the philosophy of social piety, which revolves around 'well order'. It also closely relates to utilitarian, which strongly disagree with SSM."

What you say I'm sure is true. It's actually true with the majority of religions. I'm not sure where you live, but in America we live in a democracy not a theocracy. They do sound alike but they're not the same thing. Unless you live in a theocracy, the government should not be ruled by religion. The reason for this is because everyone believes something different. Not everyone is a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu... In America, you have the freedom of religion, which is the right to practice any religion you want. You do not, however, have the right to impose your religious beliefs on someone else. So while you do have the right to be, for example, a Jew. You do not have the right to force someone else to be a Jew.
Dazedinday

Con

I'd like to say that, you did not refute my point. I was actually arguing in a utilitarian point of view. In that point of view, how one feels about it is highly important. I said for several reasons, it's for the greater good that the government does not allow SSM.

"Well, whether you like it or not, homosexuals are in our society. But allowing SSM does not force you to accept homosexuals. Even without allowing SSM you still cannot discriminate against someone because they are a homosexual. All allowing SSM does is give homosexuals the right they deserve. And homosexuals already have the right to be publicly homosexual, and express their love for each other. They've never been deprived of those rights."

I do know that homosexuals are in our society, hence our debate. You have not given a reason for me that they deserve any right they actually deserve. Personally, it's very ludicruous that anyone has a magically 'deserved' right in the first place.
But as you point out, if discrimination and prejudice continues, we do not have to give them the right to publicly announce to get themselves publicly discriminated. It's not only good for the vast majority, but in an ironic sense, good for also the inevitably homosexual.

I'll skip #2 refute for further down. Instead, I'll add in the dillema part here.
"I apologize, but I'm not sure what point your trying to make with this argument. Please forgive me, but I have no response."

Allow me to explain. It is a simple dillema whether to consider homosexuality a psychological/genetic disease. If one could prevent or cure one from such a state, would you consider it a disease? It is of course, already abnormals. There are two ways to consider.
1. We deprive them of their choice, and prevent/cure all of them. It would cleanse our society of homosexuals, and we do not have to further worry about homosexuals.
2. We give them their choice. But it would most likely not be for the best of our own good. Because obviously, it wouldn't make the vast majority feel good. Which does not good to the most, and in a utilitarian sense, thats very bad.

And furthermore is that we can actually do this. While a cure maybe far from happening, prevention of many possible homosexuals is possible. Furthermore, that will be connected to my #2 argument. I will refute first.

I personally believe that there will never be a way to absolutely prove or absolutely disprove that homosexuality is genetic. However, not only are there literally hundreds of studies displaying strong evidence for the argument that homosexuality is genetic, all homosexuals (except for perhaps a handful) say that they didn't choose to be homosexual. There is also evidence in the homosexual suicide rate, which is much, much higher than the heterosexual suicide rate. What about all those homosexual children whose deaths have been floating around the news? In most of their suicide notes they admitted to having been bullied and abused at school for being homosexual and that was their main reason for suicide. If you could just switch your sexuality with the snap of your fingers, why didn't those children do that? Why couldn't they just be heterosexual? Because it isn't a choice. You can't decide your sexual orientation, no more than you can decide if your male or female.


I don't care what you believe. That's not the point either. And next is a link. Genetics does not always override how one becomes. One is also influenced by its surroundings to form who one is. A person is actually the output of its template and in addition, its past.
http://www.narth.com...

'There is also evidence in the homosexual suicide rate, which is much, much higher than the heterosexual suicide rate. What about all those homosexual children whose deaths have been floating around the news? In most of their suicide notes they admitted to having been bullied and abused at school for being homosexual and that was their main reason for suicide.'

That helps support the fact that we should prevent more people/children from turning to homosexuality.

If you could just switch your sexuality with the snap of your fingers, why didn't those children do that? Why couldn't they just be heterosexual? Because it isn't a choice. You can't decide your sexual orientation, no more than you can decide if your male or female.

No, people always have a choice. But not always is the case when you can go back on your choice. Like I said, and with the reference above round, homosexuality is mostly the result of the environment. If you change the environment, then you can also change the person, without choice.
As referenced above, one of the key pivot in the typical process of how one turns to homosexuality are: lack of a father, inability to assimilate a masculine identity, acquiring a feminine identity...
But the one key thing is that the very process is very pivotal in the stages where a toddler is in elementary school. It would prevent homosexuals if one were to segregate the males and females in different classes on elementary schools. In that sense, it would help toddlers develope their own 'correct' gender-identity, and furthermore help develope a more 'craving' for the opposite sex.
And the very point is that we 'can' prevent homosexuals. And in a utilitarian sense, that is very good.


If you could just switch your sexuality with the snap of your fingers, why didn't those children do that? Why couldn't they just be heterosexual? Because it isn't a choice. You can't decide your sexual orientation, no more than you can decide if your male or female.

No. People always have a choice, only that some choices come with cold hard consequences. But, people always have had the choice to become what they want. What mistake or misconception you maybe making is that they made a choice, but cannot easily go back on that choice. Usually, the case is that people did not choose themselves, but let their environment choose for themselves. It usually ends up bad. But in a sense, you're saying something similar to this. For example:

A game addict is 'addicted'. He cannot 'give up' on games. He always has to play the games, and thus has horrible grades, and horrible future. He has the choice to give up the gaming, and continue his academic ways to pave way for a rather brighter future. It might be hard, but he had a choice.
But he does not make that choice, and let his addiction get the better of him. The addiction developes, and he becomes suicidal when he does not play games. God knows what will happened to him.

What you say I'm sure is true. It's actually true with the majority of religions. I'm not sure where you live, but in America we live in a democracy not a theocracy. They do sound alike but they're not the same thing. Unless you live in a theocracy, the government should not be ruled by religion. The reason for this is because everyone believes something different. Not everyone is a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu... In America, you have the freedom of religion, which is the right to practice any religion you want. You do not, however, have the right to impose your religious beliefs on someone else. So while you do have the right to be, for example, a Jew. You do not have the right to force someone else to be a Jew.

While what you say is pointless to this topic at hand, you did make a point that majority of the religions do believe that homosexuality is not desirable.
What I said was not how I want you to be a 'Confucianist'. I'm not even Confucianist. What I said was how confucians believe how a well-ordered society leads to a better future. And how I connected it to a utilitarian view, that homosexuality is undesirable, and makes people feel uncomfortable. It would not only be irrational to allow them SSM, but it would rather be more logical to prevent and rid of homosexuals.

And furthermore, do not call me a Nazi. I am not a Nazi.


Debate Round No. 3
Justin-L

Pro

My opponent says:

"I do know that homosexuals are in our society, hence our debate. You have not given a reason for me that they deserve any right they actually deserve. Personally, it's very ludicrous that anyone has a magically 'deserved' right in the first place."

Then what have heterosexual couples done to deserve the right to marry? I don't see them performing any special tasks to earn the right to marry. No one deserves the right to marry if it has to be earned.

"But as you point out, if discrimination and prejudice continues, we do not have to give them the right to publicly announce to get themselves publicly discriminated. It's not only good for the vast majority, but in an ironic sense, good for also the inevitably homosexual"

So your suggesting we silence all homosexuals by taking away their first amendment right (the right to free speech), so that heterosexuals won't become offended? That's ridiculous. Homosexuals already have limited rights, and you think we should go ahead and take away a birthright(which, by the way, is something you don't have to earn)? You can't deprive someone the right to marry who they love because "it disgusts you". The only reason "discrimination and prejudice" exists, is because of people like you who refuse to accept people for who they are and try to enforce their will on the minority by trying to make them live a lie, which is what you suggested we do.

My opponent says:

"Allow me to explain. It is a simple dilemma whether to consider homosexuality a psychological/genetic disease. If one could prevent or cure one from such a state, would you consider it a disease? It is of course, already abnormal. There are two ways to consider.
1. We deprive them of their choice, and prevent/cure all of them. It would cleanse our society of homosexuals, and we do not have to further worry about homosexuals.
2. We give them their choice. But it would most likely not be for the best of our own good. Because obviously, it wouldn't make the vast majority feel good. Which does not good to the most, and in a utilitarian sense, that's very bad."

Again, you can't tell someone else how to live their lives. As I said before, we had the same dilemma with the Civil Rights Movement. The whites were the vast majority in that situation and it made the whites feel good to know that the blacks, whom they considered beneath them, did not have the same rights as they did. That obviously made the vast majority feel good, but we look back on it today and most consider segregation based on race to be wrong. The same thing will happen when homosexuals get the right to marry. Most look back on it and think "Yeah, that was the right thing to do."
I'm sorry but I couldn't help but notice that, dealing with the two points you gave above, 2. (waiting years upon years for a "cure" and then forcing homosexuals to accept the cure, which is unconstitutional) seems alot more easier and simpler than 1. (just simply giving them their rights). But that's just me.

"I don't care what you believe. That's not the point either. And next is a link. Genetics does not always override how one becomes. One is also influenced by its surroundings to form who one is. A person is actually the output of its template and in addition, its past."

I didn't ask if you cared what I believe, I simply stated my opinion in one sentence and then presented you with facts. I can post links too.
http://skepticsplay.blogspot.com...
http://weblogs.nrc.nl...
http://pleion.blogspot.com...
http://www.apa.org...
http://www.mentalhelp.net...

My opponent says:

"That helps support the fact that we should prevent more people/children from turning to homosexuality."

No... It helps my argument not yours. You completely avoided my argument. As I said, if it were a choice they could have just become heterosexual and ended it all. People kill themselves over being homosexual. People cry their eyes out over being homosexual. That doesn't really sound like a choice to me. Ask any homosexual and they will tell you.

My opponent says:

"No, people always have a choice. But not always is the case when you can go back on your choice. Like I said, and with the reference above round, homosexuality is mostly the result of the environment. If you change the environment, then you can also change the person, without choice."

You change the environment and you change the person? Funny how the ratio of homosexuals to heterosexuals is very consistent world-wide, despite the fact that there are different environments everywhere. That's like saying if someone is right-handed and you take them to an environment where people are left-handed, they'll become left-handed.

"As referenced above, one of the key pivot in the typical process of how one turns to homosexuality are: lack of a father, inability to assimilate a masculine identity, acquiring a feminine identity..."

You obviously don't know any homosexuals personally. Lack of a father? Really? That's a ridiculous argument. I have a great dad and my brother is gay. Saying that homosexuality follows having a horrible or no father, is a ridiculous argument. Not all homosexual men are feminine like society would have us believe. In fact, one of the most masculine people I know is a homosexual. He plays football for my high school and is anything but feminine.

"But the one key thing is that the very process is very pivotal in the stages where a toddler is in elementary school. It would prevent homosexuals if one were to segregate the males and females in different classes on elementary schools. In that sense, it would help toddlers develop their own 'correct' gender-identity, and furthermore help develop a more 'craving' for the opposite sex."

That would do nothing but feed the fire. If homosexuality is indeed genetic, then this would do nothing more than stimulate an excitement around the same sex.

My opponent says:

"No. People always have a choice, only that some choices come with cold hard consequences. But, people always have had the choice to become what they want. What mistake or misconception you maybe making is that they made a choice, but cannot easily go back on that choice. Usually, the case is that people did not choose themselves, but let their environment choose for themselves. It usually ends up bad."

So your saying people choose to be male or female? Left-handed or Right-handed? Smart or dumb? Did you choose to be straight? I know I didn't because I was born that way. You don't choose who you are, God or nature, whatever you believe, made you that way.

My opponent says:

"While what you say is pointless to this topic at hand, you did make a point that majority of the religions do believe that homosexuality is not desirable.
What I said was not how I want you to be a 'Confucianism'. I'm not even Confucianist. What I said was how Confucians believe how a well-ordered society leads to a better future. And how I connected it to a utilitarian view, that homosexuality is undesirable, and makes people feel uncomfortable. It would not only be irrational to allow them SSM, but it would rather be more logical to prevent and rid of homosexuals."

I did not say you were a Confucianist. I simply said, that no one has any right to force someone to obey the laws of their religion. Actually if you put all of the numbers together, around 30%-40% of heterosexuals are fine with homosexuals. Just because your a heterosexual doesn't mean you automatically hate homosexuals. So again, put all the numbers together and the number of people who are "homophobic" or strongly disagree with homosexuals, is barely the majority.
Dazedinday

Con

You still haven't got my point. I said these reasons because it is 'good' in a utilitarian perspective. You have no perspective, except you hinted that you were a homosexual. In that sense, you still haven't said anything about how allowing SSM will benefit our society, and our future.
Adoption? That's because they don't have a choice, if they ever wanted a child. They cannot breed. It also doesn't help the fact that our society is growing old, and the population pyramid is going inverse pyramid
. Necessarily, it provides a utilitarian reason to do the society more good, and less bad.

Then what have heterosexual couples done to deserve the right to marry? I don't see them performing any special tasks to earn the right to marry. No one deserves the right to marry if it has to be earned.


They can breed. Adopting doesn't count in breeding. It doesn't help the world turning senile, but heterosexual couples can breed. That is a good, in a utilitarian sense. Homosexuals do nothing to help our society, but to stir up trouble.

So your suggesting we silence all homosexuals by taking away their first amendment right (the right to free speech), so that heterosexuals won't become offended? That's ridiculous. Homosexuals already have limited rights, and you think we should go ahead and take away a birthright(which, by the way, is something you don't have to earn)? You can't deprive someone the right to marry who they love because "it disgusts you". The only reason "discrimination and prejudice" exists, is because of people like you who refuse to accept people for who they are and try to enforce their will on the minority by trying to make them live a lie, which is what you suggested we do.

It isn't a violation of the freedom of speech if you define marriage as a bonding of male and female. Under current definition of marriage, males and males simply cannot bond.
And the 'disgust' is the important part, which is one of the major reason why it works in the utilitarian sense. Why should the majority have to sacrifice so much to save a few?

Again, you can't tell someone else how to live their lives. As I said before, we had the same dilemma with the Civil Rights Movement. The whites were the vast majority in that situation and it made the whites feel good to know that the blacks, whom they considered beneath them, did not have the same rights as they did. That obviously made the vast majority feel good, but we look back on it today and most consider segregation based on race to be wrong. The same thing will happen when homosexuals get the right to marry. Most look back on it and think "Yeah, that was the right thing to do."
I'm sorry but I couldn't help but notice that, dealing with the two points you gave above, 2. (waiting years upon years for a "cure" and then forcing homosexuals to accept the cure, which is unconstitutional) seems alot more easier and simpler than 1. (just simply giving them their rights). But that's just me.


No, we didn't have the same dillema. African Americans aren't what they choose to become. They're born African American, and frankly, they can breed also. Not only that, when they were freed from slavery, they provided a great labor force for the factories, which helped America become what is today. In the utilitarian sense, they've done a great deal.
But what will homosexuals do? Make gay bars?

No... It helps my argument not yours. You completely avoided my argument. As I said, if it were a choice they could have just become heterosexual and ended it all. People kill themselves over being homosexual. People cry their eyes out over being homosexual. That doesn't really sound like a choice to me. Ask any homosexual and they will tell you.


Again, there is a difference between choice that one has made, but is hard to turn back to. Many are rather feeble minded, and cannot cope with the fact that they're discriminated and snarled at the fact that they did whatever their psychological process led them to.

That would do nothing but feed the fire. If homosexuality is indeed genetic, then this would do nothing more than stimulate an excitement around the same sex.


Coming from a homosexual, I would not be surprised. But as I have stated, typical homosexuals aren't born homosexual. (Which is actually funny, because I'm trying to say homosexual isn't genetic, and you're trying to say homosexual isn't genetic, and trying to act as if it were counter-acting my argument.) They look and act a normal child, until they enter elementary school. Again, the source. And a ton of sources behind that one actually.
http://www.narth.com......

As you can see, they analyze that typical homosexuals are the result of a psychological process that begins in elementary, and developes into a full-fledged homosexuality by the time they reach puberty. That is because most homosexuals had had hard time getting along with the masculine (male example) identity, which has led into a craving. But when that reaches puberty without solving the problem, it would lead to a typical homosexuality.
And on the round above, I implied that if you segregate both sexes from each other at the elementary stage, they would have no choice but to get along with each other. Even loners have some company in that state, which would prevent most from developing the craving of the same sex. And when that reaches puberty, they would rather crave the opposite sex rather than the same sex.

So your saying people choose to be male or female? Left-handed or Right-handed? Smart or dumb? Did you choose to be straight? I know I didn't because I was born that way. You don't choose who you are, God or nature, whatever you believe, made you that way.

That is very different from what we're talking about. Male and females are completely decided by the 26th pair of chromosomes, and handedness is also decided by genetics. But it hasn't been unheard of being able to be omnidextrous as a result of practicing the opposite hands. You could also abandon your main hand, and be a lefty through practice (if you were a righty.).
In that example however, we can also guess that there is a way to override some things that are genetic. Even if you were homosexual, there could possibly be a psychological, hypnotical, and meditorial methods to stop being a homosexual.

I did not say you were a Confucianist. I simply said, that no one has any right to force someone to obey the laws of their religion. Actually if you put all of the numbers together, around 30%-40% of heterosexuals are fine with homosexuals. Just because your a heterosexual doesn't mean you automatically hate homosexuals. So again, put all the numbers together and the number of people who are "homophobic" or strongly disagree with homosexuals, is barely the majority.


No, you did not get my point. I didn't say most hate homosexuals, I said most are repulsive against homosexuals. Even if they do not 'think' they don't have hate towards homosexuals, it is in no doubt that most people are creeped out by homosexuals. If you look my reasons up, you will realize I have said nothing about 'forcing' or 'obeying'. I said it would be more reasonable and logical in the utilitarian sense not to allow SSM.
And as a Devil's Advocate, I'm not a homosexual hater. But I've seen how I can be repulsive toward homosexuals. Also, I was making a point that Confucianism in a utilitarian sense, the society would be better off without allowing SSM. You still have not refuted that fact.
Debate Round No. 4
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Charles0103 3 years ago
Charles0103
Well no wonder Justin is winning. You have to have passion in the subject.
Posted by Justin-L 3 years ago
Justin-L
oh ok then.
Posted by Dazedinday 3 years ago
Dazedinday
No, not really. But I know my family, friends, and most of my colleagues disagree with the entire topic.
Posted by Justin-L 3 years ago
Justin-L
oh ok. I see what your saying. So do you really have an opinion on this topic?
Posted by Dazedinday 3 years ago
Dazedinday
I mean I was a devil's advocate. I don't agree with my arguments, nor do I agree with yours. I was just arguing for the sake arguing.
Posted by Justin-L 3 years ago
Justin-L
what do you mean??
Posted by Dazedinday 3 years ago
Dazedinday
Well. It did make me a little happy. But you do realize I was not really 'meaning' my arguments?
Posted by Justin-L 3 years ago
Justin-L
that's obviously not true or the option to do it wouldn't be there. but if if makes you happy, I took down my vote :)
Posted by SpeakYourMind 3 years ago
SpeakYourMind
Don't agree with your view Dazedinday, but I agree that noone shouldn vote for themselves. Why is that option even available lol, who's going to vote for anyone but themselves?
Posted by Dazedinday 3 years ago
Dazedinday
You're not supposed to vote at all.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by kingofslash5 3 years ago
kingofslash5
Justin-LDazedindayTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Vote Placed by Charles0103 3 years ago
Charles0103
Justin-LDazedindayTied
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 Justin-L 3 years ago
Justin-L
Justin-LDazedindayTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by SimonN 3 years ago
SimonN
Justin-LDazedindayTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by gavin.ogden 3 years ago
gavin.ogden
Justin-LDazedindayTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:51 
Vote Placed by forever2b 3 years ago
forever2b
Justin-LDazedindayTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Doulos1202 3 years ago
Doulos1202
Justin-LDazedindayTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01