The Instigator
Torvald
Con (against)
Winning
10 Points
The Contender
Dragonfang
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

Gay Marriage is as bad as this debate topic

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 4 votes the winner is...
Torvald
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/18/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,785 times Debate No: 35616
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (16)
Votes (4)

 

Torvald

Con

As Con, I shall be proving that gay marriage is, in fact, pretty swell. And gay. Pro gets the honor of, well, I don't know, I don't know why anyone would be opposed to gay marriage. Constrains are pretty simple:
- Videos as evidence will be instantly dismissed.
- Invoking the vote of the audience in statements such as "Vote for Con" or otherwise informing the audience of the outcome, rather than allowing them to evaluate it themselves, is an automatic concession of the Conduct point.
- Arguments with illegible grammar can be summarily dismissed.
- Sources serve to cite and support statements, not serve as arguments; arguing with sources [as a way to circumnavigate character constraints] will be instantly dismissed.
- The making of slurs against gay people or anti-gay people will be vehemently discouraged, for obvious reasons.
- Be prepared to logically support arguments, not simply spout platitudes and propaganda.

Comment to accept. Fair luck.
Dragonfang

Pro

I believe in order to justify you resolution, Homosexual Marriage should be proved as something positive, hip and everything in between. And I must prove the opposite. Indeed, having something worse than this debate title does say something…
GL to my opponent.


The definition of marriage according to the Oxford dictionary is:

Marriage
noun
1the formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife:she has three children from a previous marriage
[mass noun] the state of being married:women want equality in marriage
(in some jurisdictions) a union between partners of the same sex.

sexual orientation
noun
[mass noun]
a person’s sexual identity in relation to the gender to which they are attracted; the fact of being heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual.

Homosexuality
adjective
sexually attracted to people of one’s own sex.
involving or characterized by sexual attraction between people of the same sex:homosexual desire

Pedophile
noun
a person who is sexually attracted to children.

Homophobia
noun
[mass noun]
an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people.




Before I begin my argument, I feel that it is necessary to recognize a clear picture of definitions.

Now, what do we notice from the first definition? A blatant attempt to change the definition of marriage. When the irrational characteristics vs. behavior comparison is made between interracial marriage and homosexual marriage, homosexuals are similar to the ones that wanted to ban interracial marriage. Whose Pro and whose con? That’s trivial. The people that wanted to prevent interracial marriage demanded to change the definition to suit their ideology. People who supported interracial marriage demanded that the definition of marriage would be recognized.

The next three definition is to get an idea of the meaning of “Sexual orientation”. The number of possible sexual orientation is potentially unlimited. You may visit this source in order to get an idea of their diversity. [2]

The final definition shows the modern definition of homophobia. However, as a medical (non-political) term. [3]

homophobia
Type: Term
Definitions:
1. Irrational fear of homosexual feelings, thoughts, behaviors, or people.



There are different types of “phobias”, however it is now used as a racist card. I consider attempts to silence arguments evidence of irrationality and hidden agendas.
In order to gain a productive debate, Sophism must be avoided. And the best way to combat fallacious, vague, and complex arguments is to simplify them.

Now lets get to what you’ve been waiting for.


-
Marriage have been exclusive to heterosexuals in general throughout history in most instances. But in order for homosexual couples to achieve equality, it must be proved that they are equal to heterosexual couples.
That is not possible for two reasons:

1- Homosexuals as couples do not benefit the society as heterosexual couples tremendously do.
As a behavior and a lifestyle, homosexuality can either benefit or harm society. It is often publicized that they adopt children. However, that is not an issue of homosexuality; anyone can be caring and loving to children to adopt them. Adoption of children is a subsequent action because they cannot produce them, so unless.. not being able to have children is somehow something positive in society... And then there is an issue homosexuality has as a sexual orientation. STDs. Did you look at an AIDS statistics recently? Yeah…

2- Homosexuality is not immutable.
Males are born with male sexual parts. So they are definitely males.
Females are born with female sexual parts. So they are definitely females.
The productive system that ensures the survival of humankind is between a male and a female, thus heterosexuality is natural. Ultimately, we are one race with two genders, males and females, and for homosexuality to be equal to heterosexuality they must have their own physiology that fits in their sexual activities.
Scientifically this is absurd; we cannot have a DNA test or blood test or any kind of medical test to prove someone's permanent homosexual status. So we must rely completely on someone's claim that his sexual orientation is innate, and yet, there are those who claim that it is a choice or that they are ex-homosexuals.
Some may use the argument that no one would choose to be gay since it is socially unacceptable, but the argument is false since there are numerous examples of people who choose to practice socially unacceptable behavior.

In the end, homosexuals are immutable heterosexuals until they present homosexual actions. Thus, it is behavior based and not moral neutral characteristics like skin color etc… Desire does not justify anything. Otherwise, rape, adultery, and murder would be justified. If someone had pedophilia based thoughts, the person is expected to conquer them by society, because the good of society is way above personal desires. It doesn’t matter if pedophilia desires are from nature or nurture, we don’t encourage it or see it as a normal behavior in society.



Discrimination in civil rights is treating equal parties unequally. And it is obvious that homosexuals do not fit the civil rights criteria.





      • Have suffered a history of discrimination







      • Are powerless to help themselves







      • Are defined by immutable characteristics.






Reading examples of discrimination in history, including homosexuals as part from the civil rights is an insult. We cannot use behavior to classify people. Sure, they have equal rights as individuals. But they have zero authority to ask for special rights because they CHOOSE to engage in a sexual conduct. Race is irrelevant to marriage since there is ultimately one human race, but gender is essential to it.
The LGBT movement does not fit as part of the civil rights movement at all. They are aggressive challengers rather than minority asking for rights. They want to change the culture, not just be equal part of it. Any agenda involving any sexual orientation would probably include normalizing the behavior and encouraging it.
Attempts to prove that homosexuals are "Born this way" are unsuccessful. In fact, the famous attempts that have been credit are refuted and unreproduced since the last century. [4] [5]


So I am going to bring you a challenge. Present an argument that is exclusive to the mainstream LGBT community and cannot be used by any other sexual orientation, like: Pedophilia, Bestiality, Incest etc… In what ground would homosexuals gain more rights than love based relationship within other sexual orientations? Why should homosexuals be given an official license for their choice of sexual conduct over other sexual orientations?
If love is the basis of marriage and the sole judge as you seem to claim, the same can be said about a man and his daughter, a man and a child, four men and a woman. Also, what is so loving about medically dangerous acts that lead to bleeding and diseases and the sort?
I once heard the argument that heterosexuals also spread diseases. But two wrongs doesn’t prove one of them is right. For homosexuals that is the rule, not the exception. Would you be ok to ban all dangerous sexual acts? Wouldn’t be sure the LGBT movement would appreciate it since the LGBT movement is based on dangerous sexual acts. [6]



[1] http://oxforddictionaries.com...
[2] http://takebackcanada.com...
[3] http://www.medilexicon.com...
[4] http://www.trueorigin.org...
[5] http://www.mygenes.co.nz...; = Summary of "My genes made me do it" book
[6] http://factsaboutyouth.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Torvald

Con

I thank my opponent for accepting the challenge. Since his argument is so long, I will address major point by major point, ignoring some of his pettier content. Before debating, however, I will remind the Pro that the burden of proof is not solely on me, and that in playing the aggressor, he has placed the greater burden on himself.

Definitions
My opponent makes the case that since the Oxford definition of marriage mentions same-sex couples as an afterthought, homosexual couples do not adequately comply with the definition of marriage. He also states that comparison to interracial marriage is irrelevant because humans are all one species. But when interracial marriage was considered immoral, it was said that the difference between people of different races was enough to make their marriage immoral. Definitions may be revised so as to meet more modern standards. Use of a definition of marriage as an argument against same-sex marriage is a blatant and irrelevant straw man. I would also point out that the inclusion of 'pedophile' in the definitions is also irrelevant, as same-sex marriage is the topic of this debate, not pedophilia.

Born this Way
My opponent has made many statements pointing to his conclusion that homosexuality is a chosen behavior, rather than an inherent characteristic, and that it is thus incomparable to heterosexuality, since this is obviously inherent. He has failed, however, to prove to us that heterosexuality is an inherent, immutable trait. Yes, it is certainly a favorable evolutionary trait, favorable for procreation, anyway. However, I utterly dismiss procreation as an issue due to the fact that the population is now approaching 8 billion, and humans are threatening themselves and many other species with extinction due to overpopulation. That gay sex does not make babies is not a reason not to have gay sex. Perhaps my opponent would argue that because protected sex also does not make babies, it is unnatural and thus not moral? Furthermore, my opponent has stated that there is no process of quantification for homosexuality; that it is just up to the word of the individual. I challenge him to prove to me that he is heterosexual. Can he take a blood test, perhaps? Or maybe he has some other form of evidence? The way I see, the homosexual 'born this way' argument works reciprocally well for either orientation, here. That the sexual relations between one of these orientations does not produce offspring does not make it less quantifiably inherent than the other.

Benefits to Society
I already addressed the point of procreation, so I shan't again. I will address, however, my opponent's outlandish claims. He has made vague and unsupported allegations that I am interpreting to mean he believes STDs are a more prevalent problem among homosexuals. However, he has shared no demographics with us, so I dismiss his unfounded attempt at producing an illusion of information via allusion. Supposing, for a moment, that we ignore this, however, my opponent's claims are even more ludicrous than this in other instances. For example, he suggests that gay couples do not benefit society by adopting children. It would seem, in fact, that my opponent is viewing reproduction almost as an industry: homosexual couples are of no benefit to society because rather than producing children, they can only take care of them. He also states that loving a child is an inherent quality of anyone. I would like him to prove this also, since his arguments have suggested that gay marriage is not valid because there is no biological proof that the love is genuine.

In the End
In his 'in the end' paragraph, my opponent makes the claim that homosexuality is behavioral, rather than inherent. He has yet to substantiate this claim. He has not substantiated that homosexuality is a behavior, nor that it is immoral, nor that it is akin to rape, adultery, murder, and the earlier-mentioned pedophilia. Speaking of pedophilia, we now see where he thought he was going with that: pedophilia is bad, pedophilia has to do with sex, pedophilia might be inherent, ergo homosexuality is bad, and gay marriage is bad. I'm not sure, but something does not seem quite right here.

The Civil Rights Movement
You may have to forgive me if I get information a little askew here, I am not fully versed in US history. I can, however, attempt to address these arguments anyway. My opponent lists three criteria for being a civil rights issue. A group must A) have suffered a history of discrimination. I think there is no question as to whether homosexuality has suffered a history of discrimination. A group must B) be powerless to help itself. While it's ludicrous to suggest homosexuals are without rights, they are also certainly not treated with the same respect and esteem as heterosexuals in most cultures, as evidenced by the illegality of gay marriage. A group must C) be defined by immutable characteristics. Since my opponent has an unfulfilled burden of proof that homosexuality is not an immutable, inherent characteristic, this is an irrelevant claim. I would also like my opponent to enlighten us as to why these three characteristics are necessary to make an issue a civil rights issue, because I do not understand why they, specifically, are necessary characteristics. Until my opponent can substantiate his claims up to this point, I will not address his remaining assaults on homosexuality as a demographic group.

A Challenge
My opponent challenges me to present an argument justifying homosexuality that cannot be used to justify pedophilia, bestiality, incest, etc. While I will fulfill this challenge, it is unnecessary because the burden of proof does not compel me to do so, and it is just my opponent diverting attention from his own unsubstantiated arguments, so far as I can see. I will first address why these examples are not in the same league with gay marriage, then I will address the challenge fully. With the exception of incest, cases such as pedophilia and bestiality both involve a factor that is totally unrelated to homosexuality: they involve one party having intercourse or other sexual activity with another party that is not able to make a reciprocal, mature decision. A child is not able to consent to sex in the way that an adult is, and an animal is certainly not able. In the case of incest, this is hard address, since many cultures do not have the same cultural taboo that the US does. Now, my address to my opponent's challenge is this: gay sex involves a pair of mutually consenting, loving adults who can in full faculties make decisions for themselves, are fully mature physically, are fully mature mentally, are fully mature emotionally, and can accept responsibility for their actions.

Direct Response
I will now directly respond to my opponent's straggling last petty lashes. "If love is the basis of marriage...as you seem to claim..." I have not made an argument yet, you cannot claim that I seem to claim. "What is so loving about..." It has not been substantiated, and I think it won't, that gay sex is any more medically dangerous than strait sex, nor that it is more likely to lead to disease and injury. Furthermore, you know what spreads diseases? Sneezing. Let's declare sneezing wrong and deny rights to people who sneeze.

Conclusion
On an endnote, I will point out that the vast majority of my opponent's arguments have exclusively been spent attacking gay sex. We are talking about gay marriage. Additionally, I apologize for any misinterpretation of Pro's content; his faulty English is difficult to understand. I find myself here with no sources to list because my arguments have been solely rebuttals, and I contest the validity of my opponent's sources: wasting our time with extensive definitions, making long strings of unsubstantiated claims that seem nothing more than purposed to criticize gay sex, and arguing with sources do not justify six citations. Pro's entire argument is a straw man.
Dragonfang

Pro

I thank my opponent for issuing a reminder. However, that would not be necessary as I recognize the shared responsibility of the burden of proof. You may call it "Capitalizing the first round" since Capitalism seems to be popular this century.


First, I would like to address my opponent's short mindness on the topic. He seems to be consider his views as a standard. Thus, considers any discussion on the relation of sexual orientation, sexual conduct, and sexual activities irrelevant on marriage. And thus are straw men. However, I disagree and would like my opponent to demonstrate that they are completely irrelevant in order to qualify to the seemingly standardized status. He also demonstrates desire to extensively use his view as an excuse to create strawmen and shift the burden of proof.

To summarize my understanding of my opponent view, I would say: Heterosexuals and homosexuals are only different in the gender of their partner, the first have an opposite-sex partner, and the other have a same-sex partner, but that they are equal in their conduct of sexual activities. And you also believe that the government have no right to regulate sexual conduct, even if it results in danger to public health, but you would make an exception for pedophilia and certain other sexual orientations.



The definition section was not meant to exchange rebuts. It was meant to reach a better understanding. However, my opponent does not seem to comprehend any of the ideas, and proceeded to make false assumptions. He makes the accusation that a definition is used by me to criticize homosexuality. However, I reminded him that the definition of marriage remained unchanged from the civil rights era, and that would further separate the homosexuality issue from the interracial marriage issue. Claiming that I used a mere definition to justify a view is ridiculous. My opponent demonstrates his insight by claiming that sexual orientation and homosexuality's relation to it is insignificant. However, I believe that it is very significant. If sexual orientation have nothing to do with the topic, then where does sex come in? In order for this debate to be about homosexuality, it must include sexual orientation since that would include fundamental and necessary aspects of homosexuality.




My opponent then proceeds to express his view on world overpopulation, although I disagree with the argument or the existence of overpopulation (birth rate is declining). However, that is not a convincing argument even if we assume all the premises are true and overpopulation doomsday is coming, as it does not fit as a general rule as it is an exception. My opponet then compare two practices that are not proven to be equal logically or medically, he seems to believe that two wrongs would make a right and justify his behavior. However, for that fallacy to work, it needs an attempt to verbally imply that both sides are equal, but we are talking about multiple fallacies in this case. Then, my opponent makes the assumption that I am a heterosexual and challenges me to prove so. To define heterosexuality as merely sexual conduct between people of opposite sex would be suppression of facts about humans. As a rule, humans are born with a reproductive system that is heterosexual by nature. Sexual feelings between males and females are rooted in our procreative heterosexual design. Thus, that would be considered normal and natural, by contrast other sexual orientations are abnormal and unnatural. As a human being, I am innately and unchangeable heterosexual. However, I may decide to choose an other sexual conduct or orientation to that is nonequivalent to heterosexuality. I would also like you to demonstrate how not having children is insignificant, and thus, does not contribute to the debate.



When my opponent claimed that I provided vague and outlandish claims about medical problems among homosexuals, he have fulfilled one of these two points:

1- Demonstrated ignorance in a basic topic concerning this debate and homosexuality, and demonstrated inability to make research on a basic and serious issue regarding the party he is supposed to defend. Furthermore, he demonstrates carelessness or lack of attention when he failed to recognize that one of my sources in the previous argument talk about this particular topic.

2- Deliberately attempted to ignore the argument using a terrible example of shifting the burden of proof. This would puts very serious doubt in his conduct.

Hopefully, he have only fulfilled the first point. If that is the case, then here are aditional unlisted sources.

http://www.cdc.gov...
http://www.cdc.gov...
http://www.cdc.gov... *** Notice that the CDC discourages homosexual sexual behavior.

My opponet then throws around a strawman. He claims that I claimed that gay couples adopting children do not benefit society. However, I claimed that adopting children cannot be used as a caliber to judge homosexuality because it does not judge homosexuality itself, but either the good will of homosexuality or how much they want a family. In order to support a crumbling strawman, my opponent decided to construct an other one and claim that I claimed that everyone love children and would adopt them, however I said that anyone can have the ability to do so. Furthermore, he once again attempts the "equal or nada" strawman. They are still unequal either way. My opponent also endorses and defends an is-ought fallacy, just because something is a certain way is no excuse to make metaphysics statements, like: whether something is good or what we should do about something. He implies that since homosexual adoption is legal it is automatically positive, and he kicks it up a notch and implies that since homosexual adoption is legal we should make homosexual marriage legal too. My opponent failed to address the issue and demonstrate how equal or different homosexuals are from heterosexuals.


The answer for my In. The. End. Is simple, there is no proof known to me, therefore there is no reason for me to assume that homosexuality is innate. The burden of proof is on the one wanting to prove a positive statement. Which is unnecessary for me really. I really don't care about law or politics on this subject, Homosexuals turned this into an issue of science. Extraordaniry claims requires extraordaniry proof. But then again, on the premise that it was proven, homosexuals and heterosexuals would still be unequal. My opponent further shows lack of ability in comprehension, or possibly a drive to attack strawmen. I think I am past the point of answering arguments I never made, please read my argument again if you haven't done so.
My opponent then equalities homosexuality with other parties without presenting a reason. What are the differences between homosexuality and heterosexuality? We need to identify them in order to prove whether they are equal or not.


My opponent makes a great error while answering my challenge. He claims that no one have the right to regulate homosexual sexual conduct, but thinks that a pedophilia conduct should be regulated. Furthermore, I never mentioned sex in my main challenge, I was talking about love. What matters if a man falls in love with a child, or a woman falls in love with an animal but they never get physical? Why aren't they given equal rights to homosexuality and marriage?
When I used the word "Seem", it was obviously a conclusion, not necessarily true. I have previously presented sources and my opponet confirms that he is subject to one of the two points presented, and he decided to make a comparison. For some reason, he gave sneezing the characteristics of homosexual behavior. Care to elaborate the similarity?


My opponet repeatedly makes the assumption that homosexuality is equilivant to heterosexuality. Yet, at least the biological comparison on sexual activities says otherwise. He needs to support that assumption.
Debate Round No. 2
Torvald

Con

I will stress that at this point I am practically guessing as to my opponent's meaning, because it is very difficult to understand his meaning. Additionally, I have no idea what much of his little understandable content is talking about, so it is hard to respond. I will respond to the few phrases that are grammatically correct enough to comprehend, and which do not seem to be about things that did not take place in this debate.

Burden of Proof
Since there seems to be much confusion as to whose is the burden of proof, I will clarify that right now, before the debate progresses to round 4. Burden of proof works by a system of Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat, "the burden of proof lies with who declares, not who denies." You, my opponent, are in the position of declaring that homosexuality (or rather, gay marriage) is bad, the burden of proof lies with you. I am he who denies your position. Making multiple references to my 'attempts to shift the burden of proof' is futile, because there is nothing for me to shift. In my Round 2, I was merely being polite when I pointed out that the burden of proof is not solely on me. My task here is rebuttal, not proof.

My View as a Standard
According with the burden of proof, my position in this debate essentially is the standard. Whether it is universal is irrelevant; for the purpose of the debate, it is this position that I am upholding, and that my opponent is to be attacking. I am sorry to have taught the term 'straw men' to my opponent, for it seems he shall now assign it to everything I say.

My opponent's summary of my view is alright at first, but then he starts mentioning things that I do not understand why he is mentioning. I don't believe I mentioned 'the government' (I'm not even sure which government is being talked about), I already explained the 'exception' of pedophilia, and my opponent's choice to ignore it inclines me to ignore his repeated, refuted argument.

Productive Members of Society
I expressed my view, as has now been put, on overpopulation because it is relevant to my opponent's argument that because homosexual couples cannot produce their own offspring, they are not productive contributors to society. As I have already stated, being a productive contributor to society via offspring is not relevant given the world's extreme population. The rest of the 'arguments' in the paragraph that begins by addressing overpopulation are not from this debate, and seem to be figments of my opponent's imagination, unless he can enlighten us as to their relevance.

When I stated that the Pro's claims were vague and outlandish, it was not a demonstration of ignorance, nor a deliberate attempt to ignore a valid argument, rather, it was a dismissal of an 'everybody knows' type suggestion. My opponent made a reference to demographics about sexually transmitted disease among the gay community, but did not corroborate this with information. He did not even finish his sentence, rather, ended it with "...Yeah."

My opponent has now violated points three and four of the resolution, that arguments that are grammatically illegible can be summarily dismissed, and that citations are to be used to show a source of information, not to make an argument. I do not have to read my opponent's sources to know what his argument is supposed to mean. He should present his argument in the round, rather than via link, as this is a blatant excession of character constraints. For the mere sake of continuity, I have been very lenient about applying point three of the resolution, but am starting to lose patience.

Sneezing
Until the request that I elaborate on my comparison of my opponent's straw man attack on homosexuality by sexually transmitted diseases to sneezing, most if not all of what he says falls under points three, four, and six of the resolution, justifying a dismissal. If there is any of it that he wishes to rephrase in grammatically legible, logically organized, and fully expounded trains of thought, I will gladly address it. To deal with his request that I elaborate upon my sneezing analogy, it was really just a trivial response to a trivial accusation. Pro accused the homosexual community of spreading sexually transmitted disease in a more prevalent degree than the heterosexual community ("Also, what is so loving about medically dangerous acts that lead to bleeding and diseases and the sort..."). Since he did not substantiate this in any way, I flippantly replied that, just as sex can transmit disease, so can sneezing, thus suggesting that [gay] sex be prohibited to prevent the spread of disease is silly just as it would be to prohibit sneezing for the same reason. My opponent may very well accuse this of being a straw man, but, if you'll pardon the language of the expression, "If you ask a stupid question, you get a stupid answer."

Conclusion
In conclusion, since there has yet to be a dispute of any information, since my opponent has done nothing to substantiate any of his claims, I don't have any sources to post. Once more, I also point out that all of my opponent's sources are either extemporaneous 'padding sources' taken from dictionaries or sources intended to do my opponent's arguing and citing of information for him, and don't subscribe to the guidelines of the resolution. In addition, I would point out that much of my opponent's round 2 has been spent making claims about my case that seem to me to be wild and invented. If not, I should like examples, rather than such empty suggestions (e.g. "My opponent repeatedly makes the assumption that homosexuality is equivalent to heterosexuality..."). At this point, my opponent has failed to present a competent response to any single one of my rebuttals to his round 1, therefore I conclude that as of now, the resolution is unsupported; gay marriage is not bad (/morally inferior).
Dragonfang

Pro

Lets get things clear about my views.

1- Homosexuality is defined by their the sexual conduct.
Just because we love someone does not mean they are part of our sexual conduct, neither is someone different for loving a certain thing. Thus, the standard we must judge them with is the homosexual behavior. Homosexuality is self-evidently a form of sexual behavior, there is no reason to assume that it is a state of being.
Being natural is not an issue of desire, there are many desires that are self-destructive. It is an issue of design.


2- To define heterosexuality as merely sexual conduct between people of opposite sex would be suppression of facts about humans. As a rule, humans are born with a reproductive system that is heterosexual by nature. Sexual feelings between males and females are rooted in our procreative heterosexual design. Thus, that would be considered normal and natural, by contrast other sexual orientations are abnormal and unnatural. This does not point to superiority, but it shows that homosexuals are not equal to heterosexual.


3- We are unchangeably heterosexual as our procreative organs have a heterosexual design. This applies to all humans with the exception of those born with genital mutilation.


4- If homosexuality is proven to be "bad", then legalizing homosexual marriage would be encouraging something negative, which in the encouraging itself would negative. Thus, my role would be fulfilled.


According to these points, homosexuality is biologically equivalent to pedophilia and bestiality. When recognizing homosexuality for what it is, we see that it is not legally entitled to gain the rights for marriage.
Appeal to emotion is fallacious, we must rely on logic since homosexuality is a sensitive topic for some reason. If we are not to judge people, who are you to judge me for judging homosexuality?




Productive member of society
My opponent would like to use overpopulation as an excuse to justify homosexuality and put it on an equal or even an advantageous position. My opponent have yet to demonstrate that world population is real, or that homosexuality will be more advantageous than harmful if world overpopulation is indeed true.

The world population growth is declining and will eventually reach stability [1]. Furthermore, "civilized" countries where so called homosexual freedoms thrive have some of the lowest fertility rates, so there is no need for homosexuals to come to the rescue and lessen it even more. [2] There is enough food for everybody as we are making more food than we ever did. [3]


My opponent did ignore my argument. The issue of homosexuality disease was addressed at the end of the first argument and cited. My opponent only addressed a humorous addition that was addressed later in the argument while refusing to recognize the addression.
He then acts as a judge who have the authority to define, declare and condemn, and check this out: "Apply". Does he vote too? Does this mean he have the right to dismiss everything and declare himself winner?
I would also like to ask my opponent whether his declaration would violate Rule #2. If I didn't know better, I would be applying that rule.

Dismiss if you find it convenient. I shall do the same. However, I believe it is up to more unbiased persons to decide whether it was convenient.



Sneezing
Although I do not deny the existence of spelling or grammatical mistakes, I believe that most my arguments are grammatically correct. Therefore, I see no need to rephrase my argument.
My opponent confirms my suspicion. He have used a false (moral) equivalent fallacy. Homosexual behavior is not identical to sneezing. Unforged sneezing happens beyond one's will, even if one intends to stop them, Furthermore, it is medically dangerous to suppress sneezing if the opportunity appears [4], so it can be considered an issue of trading higher harm with unconfirmed lower harm. Conscious sexual behavior (except rape) is a choice [5], thus. homosexuality is morally and legally unneutral. I have yet to meet a group who choose to develop the virtually non-existent ability of sneezing and call their doctrine sneezliality, because they have the sexual desire to sneeze on people's faces.





Harmful effects
As stated (and cited) before, homosexuality is medically dangerous. Promoting it as an alternative would be illogical, as the government is entitled to protect it's citizens, and in the process discourage and pass laws against self-destructive behavior. This includes suicide, and drug usage.

HIV diagnoses among homosexual men is more than 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women. The rate of primary and secondary syphilis among homosexual men is more than 46 times that of other men and more than 71 times that of women. [6]
Although research is focused on male homosexuals because their sexual behavior is generally more dangerous, research concerning lesbians does not bring good news. They too suffer from serious health problems. [7]

Just the encouraging of harmful sexual behavior, healthcare will be tasked with dealing with more STD cases, thus reducing the efficiency for the healthcare tax cut, and possibly raises prices or taxes.

As a harmful act a government have every right to regulate it. There is no logical and non-emotional/fallacious reason to endorse it. Let alone equate it with marriage.



A survey shows that the monogamy rate among homosexuals is 45%, while 47% admitted open relationships. [8] There an other survey that produce similar results and claims that homosexuals with moderate opening in their relationships would have a healthier life. [9]
Although I personally dislike surveys as I do not consider them accurate-enough, they can give us a rough estimate.
This brings us the question. Is monogamy too closed for homosexuals?


The Netherlands have been the first country to legally support homosexual marriage, but this probably resulted in an explosion of unwed childbearing.
Correlation does not necessarily lead to causation, but we must go with the best evidence.
Furthermore, countries with high homosexuality same-sex activism demonstrate similar spikes of illegitimacy. [11]





Therefore, homosexuality is an objectively disordered condition deserving of social disapproval because it spreads disease and dysfunction. Endorsing homosexual marriage will be endorsing homosexuality which have no right to marriage. Harmful behavior deserve to be at least discouraged or prohibited by any government concerned over the public health of society which is composed by individuals.
As demonstrated, homosexuaility and homosexual marriage are harmful for society, so they have no right to ask to be endrowsed, and most importantly, there is no logical reason for homosexuals to ask for equality.


[1] http://www.worldometers.info...
[2] http://www.prb.org...
[3] http://www.worldhunger.org...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
[4] http://www.livescience.com...
[5] http://www.case.edu...
[6] http://factsaboutyouth.com...
[7] http://www.glma.org...
[8] http://www.sfgate.com...
[9] http://www.queerty.com...
[10] http://www.nationalreview.com...
http://www.weeklystandard.com...
[11] http://usatoday30.usatoday.com...
Debate Round No. 3
Torvald

Con

I thank my opponent for clarifying his view, it makes it much easier to address.

1. Homosexuality may include the sexual act of intercourse with an individual of the same gender. However, no matter how many times my opponent states that homosexuality is a behavior and not a state of being, he has yet to make any movement toward proving this. It is being treated too much like a mystery, as if there is not a way to determine one way or another. To some extent, there isn't, but there's also an easy enough way to clear some of the fog. Is being gay a state of being, or a behavior? Let's ask people who are gay. I encourage all the gay people who read this to indicate in the comment section whether or not they consider their being gay a behavior or a state of being.

2. To define heterosexuality as merely sexual conduct between people of opposite sex would be reducing it to the same level that my opponent has attempted to do with homosexuality, and there would be as much evidence to support it. That humans (and, incidentally, most animals that one might give example of) have gender does not mean that romance can occur only between individuals capable of procreation. This would indicate that somehow people who are infertile are not able to have valid romantic feelings for one another either.

3. My opponent has yet to establish how procreation has bearing on romance. Obviously there is the correlation between entering a heterosexual relationship and procreating, but we surely would not judge couples on whether or not they reproduce.

4. Yes, if homosexuality were proven to be 'bad,' homosexual marriage would be an institution of 'badness.' However, for his role to be fulfilled, my opponent would have to make some effort to prove that homosexuality is 'bad.'

According to these points, there is no association whatsoever between homosexuality and pedophilia, or homosexuality and bestiality. My opponent has brought up this 'point' repeatedly, and has done nothing whatsoever to substantiate it, but rather continues to state that it is true, with no form of corroboration. I have already taken apart his poor analogy on the issue, and he has failed to even address my rebuttal, thus I consider the rebuttal upheld.

Productive Members of Society
No, I would not like to use overpopulation as an excuse to justify homosexuality. I used overpopulation as an example of why my opponent's assertion that inability to reproduce made gay couples unproductive members of society, malcontributors, was misplaced and irrelevant. While the existence of overpopulation is another debate in itself, I will still briefly explain its existence.

A) Extinctions
When one population grows too large so as to demand the resources of other species, those other species begin to go extinct. There have been more than 850 extinctions recorded since 1500. [1]
B) Population growth
My opponent has hinted that he thinks population is declining, however, sources are quite to the contrary. Current population exceeds 7.1 billion, and is growing steadily. [2] Per every hour, approximately 15,218 people are born, while only approx. 6,471 people die. [3]
Now, this is quite sufficient to suggest the presence of overpopulation, or alarming population growth to say the least. Couples who do not reproduce are not so disadvantageous to a society that faces such growth at such numbers already.

If there is enough food for everybody, why are some people (specifically about 777 million per annum [4]) still going hungry?

My opponent is quite correct, I did ignore his assertion that disease is prevalent among homosexuals simply because he stated exaclty that, not even that explicit. He did not provide statistics, he did not provide information at all. He did attempt to circumvent the character limit by using a link to an article as his statistics and as his argument. The resolution gives express permission to dismiss such arguments.

To address your inquiry about whether or not my declaration of myself as winner would violate rule two, yes, it would. If I had declared myself winner, I would have violated the resolution. However, since I have not declared myself winner, merely stated that I feel I have successfully upheld that gay marriage is not wrong because my opponent has offered no substantiated evidence to the contrary. Whether or not such a statement is true is up to the voters to determine. That is how the voting process works.

Sneezing has gone on far too long. It was a flippant remark of humor, and I refuse to address it further as if it had been intended as a serious argument.

Harmful Effects
I am relieved that my opponent has finally made an argument that is competently complete! It has statistics and information, rather than just unsupported claims! However, it is still not relevant. That gay sex spreads STDs is not a reason to make it illegal, any more than any kind of sex should be made illegal because it spreads disease. Heterosexual sex spreads disease as well. Furthermore, married couples do not customarily have a problem with STDs (if they're being faithful within the marriage).

I am not sure I understand my opponent's "The question," "Is monogamy too closed for homosexuals?"

Pro's Conclusion
My opponent's conclusion, that homosexuality is objectively disordered condition deserving of social disapproval because it spreads disease and dysfunction, is, from my perspective, unsupported. He has supported one of his claims, that the spread of STDs among the gay community is greater than in the straight community. However, he has made nothing more than assertions regarding his accusation of 'dysfunction.' He has not substantiated this. He has not established that homosexuality has no right to marriage. He has not demonstrated how either homosexuality or homosexual marriage would be harmful for society. His 'argument' may appear grand, but it is still just a long string of assertions and little-related notions that do not have bearing on the issue of the debate, which is the relative moral value of gay marriage.

Pro's Case
The way I see it, my opponent has two main points:
A) Homosexual couples do not benefit society because they do not reproduce.
B) Homosexuality cannot be proven as an intensive characteristic, and is thus a behavior.
Now, he has not demonstrated how the ability to reproduce makes heterosexual couples better, or how the inability thereof is a black mark against homosexual couples. Therefore this point is not upheld. He has furthermore failed to demonstrate that homosexuality is a behavior, and has compounded this failure by alleging that homosexuality is comparable to bestiality and pedophilia, without moving to substantiate such a claim. I therefore consider this point not upheld as well.

Conclusion
Once more, my opponent is padding his sources; he wastes time attacking minor issues, such as overpopulation, sneezing, and STDs, and then cites an unnecessary number of sources for each. Additionally, he skips from source nine to source eleven. I am unsure of the significance of this, however, I do not that the attributions he makes seem to be erroneous based on his sources: he attributes out-of-wedlock birth rate in the Netherlands to legalization of homosexuality, while according to his sources, demographers attribute this to the collapse of Communism. [5] Since my opponent has failed to uphold his points, and spent the debate attacking minor issues whilst skirting around the major ones, and since I have successfully rebutted his arguments, I consider the title/topic disproved: gay marriage is not bad.

Sources
1. http://www.theguardian.com...
2. http://data.worldbank.org...
3. http://countrymeters.info...
4. http://www.likar.info...
5. http://www.nationalreview.com...
Dragonfang

Pro

*Clears throat*

1- My opponent's argument had a lot of fish, Red Herrings to be accurate. A Red Herring is a smelly fish that is dragged across the trail of the fox in order to mislead the dogs.
If my opponent wants to make a question opposing my case, that question would be: "I encourage all the gay people who read this debate to raise their hands or whatever if they do not engage in homosexual activity". I have already stated that desire does not justify behavior, they are different things and are not judged by our desires or thoughts. There is no magical force that possesses alcoholics and make them drink alcohol, only strong desire.
I am going to say it: Desires are probably not a conscious choice, but actions and behaviors are generally definitely a choice.



And lets follow your strawman, some homosexuals claim that it is a choice, some claim to be ex-homosexuals. Ultimate answer?


Maybe you didn't choose to be gay—that's fine. But I did. —Donna Minkowitz



Numbers of people changing towards exclusive OSA are greater than the current total numbers of bisexuals and exclusive SSA people combined. This surprising figure supports the catchphrase circulating ten years ago: “Ex-gays outnumber actual gays.” About 3% of both men and women with exclusive OSA claim to have once been something else. [1]


Sinéad O'Connor had sexuality mood swings and said that it is not right to call her a bisexual (How do you explain bisexuality btw?). [2]


My point stands, homosexuality is biologically equivalent to pedophilia and bestiality. There's no civil right to marry whomever you wish, unless gay and lesbians are considered the third and fourth gender, but then again, the potential number of genders can go to ad infinitum that way. Sure, they have the right to do it in private, but once they ask for recognition and endorsement, they cross the line of public privilege.



2- Good news folks, understanding my opponent's views have never been easier. Here is where my opponent makes what you would call a "Fatal slip", he just contradicted his whole argument. So according to him, the only thing that matters is romantic feelings. If romance exists marriage can exists. Well, on that standard pedophilia, BDSM sub sections, and bestiality all deserve recognition.
Instances where children give consent to pedophilia are very possible [3] (NAMBA anyone?) and there are sadomasochistic who wanna mix it up with a legal slave contract. You wanna reduce heterosexuality to that level? Give me a break.
My opponent also makes such a huge claim about actual romantic homosexuality behavior exists within animals without citing scientific sources, but that does not matter. The argument is flawed as no one sane would judge a lion for it's morals, and as you stated before, it is against evolution as it have no net worth.



3- Need I remind my opponent that ejaculation is related to sexual arousal? Or that sex drive is related to menstruation cycles? So my point stands that homosexuality is nothing more than a same-sex conduct among people who are innately and unchangeably heterosexual.


4- Agreed.



My opponent have exposed his flawed logic. Furthermore, he have yet to respond to my argument, his rebuttal was nothing more than refusing to include pedophilia in the debate, and claiming that it is irrelevant. Although my opponent insists to include overpopulation.



Social Productivity
My opponent misinterprets me as I said that the RATE of growth is decreasing. Which means the increase will soon end in a halt. I would like to also correct my opponent belief that the economical system is "fair".
My opponent did not address the argument that industrial countries population is decreasing. He also ignored the medical harms of homosexuality in his productivity equation.

I exactly stated that homosexuality is medically dangerous and supported that statement with a source, perfectly goes along the rules. Although it is interesting that you acknowledge the existence of statistics that support that statement.



Yes, declaring yourself a winner would be a good example of violating rule two. However, rule two includes, and I quote, "invoking the vote of the audience ... and informing them of the outcome, rather than allowing them to evaluate it themselves."
I believe parades (pun intended) and decelerations are rather informing no?
"My opponent has now " You hear that stuff in airports.


And since you put sneezing aside, my non-trivial argument that was assaulted by a dismissed trivial response stands. Would a practice that causes an epidemic in STDs deserve disapproval (at least)?


Lets think about it. Homosexuals are approximated to be 3.5% of the US population [4]. Which means homosexual men are probably less than 3% of the population.

And yet, Homosexual men account for more than 82% of the AIDs diagnosis in 2011 [5]

I believe that is more than enough reason to consider homosexual activities "bad".




The Harmful Factor
My opponent agrees that sex that spreads diseases should be made illegal. Well, he have yet to prove the assumption that homosexuality is equally dangerous with heterosexuality. Until then, that standard will only apply to homosexual behavior. It doesn't make sense to hope that they will fix their harm-proven behavior once they get married. Homosexuals preform exteremly dangerous activities


Furthermore, a study claims that homosexuality reduces lifespan by 24 years, while smoking reduces lifespan by 7 years. [6] This is in confirmation of a previous Canadian study that claimed a 20 years cut [7].


My opponet continues a trend of (purposely?) misinterrupting arguments and ignroing arguments. Perhabs one of the most hilarious examples is dismissing the out-of-wedlock birth rate. He claims that the source attributes it to communism... Wait! Scandalavia was a bunch of communist nations? Communism under the guise of socialism... collapsed... You can facepalm, you know you want to.
The source said that such high rates is only comparable to communism collapse countries. He ten declares himself winner. Figures.


I believe that my opponent have failed to respond to argument and resorted to avoiding them. He have failed to propose strong positive arguments for his position.
We can conclude that homosexuality and it's marriage have no legal, logical, or social reason to be endorsed. Thats just it. We can't lower lung cancer by glorifying smokers, or remove alcholism by praising alcholists. We must learn to live with our choices, but remember that we live in a society and that we have a responsability toward it. It doesn't matter whether something is popular, or whether it is politicaly beneficial. We should care if it is right.




[1] www.mygenes.co.nz/PDFs/Ch12.pdf
[2] www.gaystarnews.com/article/sin%C3%A9ad-oconnor-says-its-not-accurate-call-her-bisexual160312
[3] http://www.loladelphia.com...
[4] http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
[5] http://www.cdc.gov...
[6] http://www.lifesitenews.com...
[7] http://www.lifesitenews.com...
Debate Round No. 4
Torvald

Con

I have very little to say at this point. I think this may very well have been the most bizarre and ludicrous debate in which I have ever participated, and I have debated Rationalmadman, Daytonanerd, and Jorgelucas. In many cases, it is hard for me to respond because I simply do not know how to address the things that Dragonfang is saying. I am not sure if there is some sort of misunderstanding between the two of us, or if he is really acting with such strange behavior: declaring my rebuttals to be 'red herrings,' (and I note in very colorful metaphors) yet not explaining why, claiming to have made strong arguments whilst ignoring their rebuttals, and making outlandish claims about things I have [not] said. I hope the former, for misunderstandings may be ameliorated. Dogma is not so easily cured.

1. You may state that desire does not justify behavior, but since you have not explained why this particular desire needs justification, or indeed how it might be any different from heterosexual behavior, this red herring is yours. You may claim that gay sex is harmful all you want, but this is unsubstantiated, as I will later explain [again]. Comparing homosexuality to alcoholism is even more bizarre than comparing it to bestiality--alcoholism is an addiction. The 'nonexistent' 'magical force' of which you speak is addiction. While it's certainly possible to become addicted to sex, that has no bearing on the issue of gay rights to marriage.

That some gay people claim it is a choice for them does not negate the majority of gay people who claim they were 'born that way.'

I would like to point out what has been done here: my opponent has disagreed with me, cited some source to support an unimportant suggestion that not all gay people are born gay, and then reiterated that his 'point' stands, that homosexuality is equivalent to pedophilia and bestiality. I already addressed this outlandish assertion in the second round, and he has ignored my rebuttal.

2. I did not say that the only thing that matters is romantic feelings. Please stop telling people I said things that I did not. Additionally, I already addressed the issue of pedophilia.

I did not claim that animals have homosexuality, I claimed that they have gender. I cannot fathom how you have so grossly misinterpreted my words.

3. Restating that people are innately heterosexual does not prove that people are innately heterosexual. Listing ejaculation and menstruation as evidence of a heterosexual predisposition is nonsensical--people who engage in homosexual relations are aroused and driven no less than those in heterosexual relations.

4. My dear fellow, I am becoming quite exasperated now! I already addressed your claims about pedophilia and was ignored! What can I say?

Social Productivity
I see no evidence of a decreasing rate of population increase. Unless my opponent had provided this, I would choose to ignore it; as it is the last round, preferably only rebuttals are to be made.
Yes, some countries have shown a decrease in population, and some have shown an increase. That is how population works. However, the global trend is a significant and disturbing increase.
The 'medical harms' of homosexuality will be addressed in 'the harmful factor.'

The Harmful Factor
We come now to the last stronghold of the Pro position--that homosexuality is undesirable because it spreads STDs. As his statistics (and only two relevant sources to date) have shown, gay sex seems to facilitate a spread of STDs. I would contest the reasons for this, but there is no time. Now, my opponent has, in keeping with his overall classy style, claimed that I agree with him that sex that spreads diseases should be made illegal. No, I do not agree with him, and I regard such an opinion with mirth. All sex can spread sexually transmitted diseases. The name says it all.

I think the claim that homosexuality reduces lifespan by such an oddly specific, drastically unrealistic figure is exemplified in its unreliability by the fact that Pro's 'sources' for this claim (both six and seven) are for a page stub with no information on it whatsoever except a link to an American right-wing, religious blog 'news' website.

Regarding my 'trend,' I have been interpreting arguments as best I can, and in fact, it seems that we both may be doing this: your paraphrases of my arguments have been dismally inaccurate; perhaps you see mine the same way. As for ignoring your 'arguments,' much, if not all, of what I have ignored has been minor and irrelevant issues, such as your fixation on my flippant remark about sneezing, or your persistent reiteration of your already-rebutted pedophilia assertion. I have been ignoring your progressively more unbelievable and derogatory suggestions and assertions because that is all they have been.

I am not sure what is being said about my reminder that my opponent's source attributes the increase in out-of-wedlock birth rate in the Netherlands to the socioeconomic repercussions of the collapse of communism in Europe. It seems he thinks I have made some sort of mistake.

On the Debate
I have no proposed an argument in favor of my position because the burden of proof is not on me. I do not have to fulfill that burden of proof, unfortunately, my opponent, who has scarcely presented an argument at all, let alone a strong one, does have to fulfill the burden of proof, and has not. His entire debate has fixated around making maleficent assertions without corroboration, declaring his point supported even though it has been addressed multiple times, and making strange claims about things I have [not] said. I do not understand his tactics. He has compared homosexuality to bestiality, pedophilia, alcoholism, smoking, and some sort of plague. He has repeatedly made claims intended to discredit homosexuality that equally discredit heterosexuality (e.g. "...sex that spreads diseases should be made illegal"). He has attempted to appear to list a simply huge number of sources, but upon examination, they are redundancies (for example, listing multiple sources for the same definition, or defining something multiple times), repetitions (citing the same source for multiple arguments), or totally irrelevant (citations to pages that have nothing to do with, or do not support, his arguments). He puts on a grandiose debate, but it's built on a foundation of sand.

To address one final issue before the conclusion, no, I have not been declaring myself winner. I have stated that I have successfully rebutted your points. I have stated that I have upheld my position. These are neither invoking a vote in my favor nor declaring myself winner nor instructing the voters on how to vote. This is a conclusion.

Conclusion
I will dispense with my customary farewell, because it has not been enjoyable debating you. You are malevolent and rude. You twist my words around so much that I can't even begin to see how you got there. Your arguments are derogatory and nonsensical. Your grammar is hard to understand, and you don't conjugate the verb "have" correctly. You refuse to acknowledge your burden of proof. In all honesty, I am very glad that my role in this debate is now over. I wish you fare well. I hope I never have the misfortune of trying to debate you again. That much said, I believe I have successfully rebutted everything you have produced, and that I have successfully felled the resolution: Gay marriage is not morally undesirable.
Dragonfang

Pro

Since the previous round was my opponent's last, I will review my opponent's argument.


My opponent claims: "You may state that desire does not justify behavior, but since you have not explained why this particular desire needs justification, or indeed how it might be any different from heterosexual behavior"

Nice comprehension as always T.
I believe I affirmed that desire does not need justification or brings any judgement, unlike behavior which can be inspired by desire. Just as desire does not need justifications, it cannot justify.
The second statement was answered previously. However this statement was phrased vaguely, therefore it requires a simple answer which is: Homosexuality is a sexual conduct from people who are unchangeable heterosexual. Homosexuals do not possess physiology that fits their sexual behavior unlike heterosexual.


My opponent claims: "Comparing homosexuality to alcoholism is even more bizarre than comparing it to bestiality"

As for the alcoholism comparison, to make the picture clear to you: Both as behaviors are conscious choices. Both involve powerful compulsive drives and desires. Both pose grave health risks. Both conditions are characterized by the active practice of specific behaviors.
In addition, an "Alcoholism gene" was claimed to exist, but why don't we encourage people to get drunk as long as they feel like it? Or legally recognize them? Or call it a "Healthy alternative"?


My opponent claims: "That some gay people claim it is a choice for them does not negate the majority of gay people who claim they were 'born that way'"

*Warning. Logic 101 breached*
And the majority do not negate the minority. Think of some actual civil rights movements for example. The number of people who believe in something have zero connection with the validity, otherwise Rainbow Unicorns would exist in times where people believe they exist.
So we need a test in controlled conditions, or something objective to confirm the claim that homosexual behavior is engaged beyond one's will, or it remains unconfirmed scientifically and disconfirmed logically. The science in that claim please?


My opponent claims: "that homosexuality is equivalent to pedophilia and bestiality. I already addressed this outlandish assertion in the second round, and he has ignored my rebuttal"

What my opponent actually said:
[1] "I would also point out that the inclusion of 'pedophile' in the definitions is also irrelevant, as same-sex marriage is the topic of this debate, not pedophilia"
[2] "Speaking of pedophilia, we now see where he thought he was going with that: pedophilia is bad, pedophilia has to do with sex, pedophilia might be inherent, ergo homosexuality is bad, and gay marriage is bad"
[3] "they involve one party having intercourse or other sexual activity with another party that is not able to make a reciprocal, mature decision. A child is not able to consent to sex in the way that an adult is, and an animal is certainly not able"


1- And same-sex marriage is... without sex? It is simple, if homosexuality is unavoidable, what about the pedophiles who find pedophilia unavoidable?

2- I'll just shake my head and point you to my argument to ctrl f:
"In the end, homosexuals are immutable heterosexuals..."
I never called homosexuality "bad". I am only saying that they are biological in the same situation. On the premise that homosexuality turns out to be bad, it would be hypocrisy to not include pedophilia in public discouragement or those parade things. At least bring them in the front lines, not hiding at the back of the parades...

3- My challenge had nothing to do about sex. So if homosexuality is only about love and thus the homosexual behavior should not be judged, then in what ground can we stop
As I showed in my previous argument, children are able to give consent. What you mean is that they are not fit to give consent, but then again that statement is subjective. Pedophilia advocates will disagree, and sadly some children will. So speaking from a democracy perspective, once the majority stop believing that children are not fit to consent that will go official. same thing with accepting homosexuality.
Spider Jerusalem was so right about voting.


Oh... And I think a saw a few strawmen passing by the corner of my eyes... *Shudders*



my opponent claims: "I did not claim that animals have homosexuality, I claimed that they have gender. I cannot fathom how you have so grossly misinterpreted my words"


What my opponent actually said: "That humans (and, incidentally, most animals that one might give example of) have gender does not mean that romance can occur only between individuals capable of procreation"


Sorry, I misinterpreted the argument. I thought it was talking about homosexuality. What'cha Know, turns out most animals have romantic feelings between infertile pairings, but then again doesn't that include homosexual?


Yeah... I believe that technique is called "Logic". When you do "Logic" on fallacious statement they look ridiculously bizarre.



"Restating that people are innately heterosexual does not prove that people are innately heterosexual"

You are a genius Sherlock! Now if you can just relate that to your own arguments.


My opponent claims: "Listing ejaculation and menstruation as evidence of a heterosexual predisposition is nonsensical--people who engage in homosexual relations are aroused and driven no less than those in heterosexual relations"

First of all, the last statement is subjective, you can't be sure. Perhaps they are driven even more, but what is scratching my head is (Well thank you!): Assuming that statement is true, what does it have to do with anything???
Fact remains, homosexuality and other orientations are a spinoffs from heterosexuality, and homosexuality uses heterosexual organs.


My opponent claims: "My dear fellow, I am becoming quite exasperated now! I already addressed your claims about pedophilia and was ignored! What can I say?"

We were on the same page? Why the sudden burst?
Anyways, there is a couple of fundamental errors:

www.vocabulary.com

"Address" does not have the same meaning of "Ignore" or "Avoid". Also, it is really hard not to ignore something that was ignored.



My opponent claims: "I see no evidence of a decreasing rate of population increase"
An argument from ignorance...
I should not address this, but you can logically conclude this when you compare the population to the time it needs to increase by 1 billion. My statement is fully supported by the source.



My opponet claims: "claimed that I agree with him that sex that spreads diseases should be made illegal. No, I do not agree with him, and I regard such an opinion with mirth. All sex can spread sexually transmitted diseases (Assuming they are completely equal)"


What my opponent actually said: "That gay sex spreads STDs is not a reason to make it illegal, any more than any kind of sex should be made illegal because it spreads disease. Heterosexual sex spreads disease as well"

^Two wrongs makes a right. Therefore you agree that spreading STD is wrong. However, I demonstrated that homosexual sex is MUCH more dangerous, and frankly, pros to cons useless to society.
Heterosexual sex is the exception. Homosexual sex is the rule.



My opponet attempts to avoid the life-span with a genetic fallacy. He also ignores how medically dangerous homosexuality is. Therefore both points stand strong.
My opponent also insists to associate the Netherlands with communism, although it was only mentioned for comparison.


My opponent claims: "I have no proposed an argument in favor of my position because the burden of proof is not on me. I do not have to fulfill that burden of proof"

I am sorry, I just thought that you said something about proving that homosexual marriage is swell in the rules... Wait, you did!
A bit confused here... Help?



No matter how you find my sarcasam rude, I am pretty sure I find your sneaking through my arguments ruder. That is but a reflection of you not taking arguments seriously, at least I "addressed" arguments.
Debate Round No. 5
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Torvald 4 years ago
Torvald
Burden of proof shifted when Pro adopted it by arguing in first round.
Posted by Torvald 4 years ago
Torvald
*In my last paragraph, "I do not" should have been "I do think." Sorry if that caused any confusion.
Posted by Torvald 4 years ago
Torvald
It is not meant to be stereotypical. People speaking a non-native language often have certain mistakes they make based on their linguistic frame of mind, so to speak. I was only trying to make the debate go smoother. If that's something you don't wish to reveal, that's fine.

When I talk about 'illegible grammar,' I mean instances in which the grammar mistakes make it hard or impossible to understand the meaning of something. An example I can give is this: "Thus, considers any discussion on the relation of sexual orientation, sexual conduct, and sexual activities irrelevant on marriage. And thus are straw men." That is two sentences in a row that both have no subject. No subject makes it hard to understand the meaning.

Also, though it's not a grammatical issue, be try not to skip so many lines sometimes. You skip up to four lines, in some cases. That's too many!
Posted by Dragonfang 4 years ago
Dragonfang
Even if knowing my native language would help if the issue was in the lack of comprehension abilities. That is still too stereotypical for my taste.

I still wonder about the meaning of "illegiable grammar" you apparently found. Perhabs posting examples would clear the definition.
Posted by Torvald 4 years ago
Torvald
There is no reason to be adversarial, it was a simple, friendly question. I don't think there can be any debating that you make a lot of grammatical mistakes. I can give some examples if you wish. Even if the lack of comprehension were my fault, I can still understand you better if I know your native language.
Posted by Dragonfang 4 years ago
Dragonfang
That is a loaded question. You make the assumption that I make grammatic mistakes, but native language does not neccessarly relate to the subject. Neither do I agree with the assumption.
The lack of comprehension might be your own fault.
Posted by Torvald 4 years ago
Torvald
Out of curiosity, Dragonfang, what is your native language? If I know what it is, I might have an easier time understanding some of the grammatical mistakes.
Posted by Torvald 4 years ago
Torvald
TUF, read the second comment.
Posted by Torvald 4 years ago
Torvald
Alright Dragonfang, you're the opponent now. Thanks!
Posted by Dragonfang 4 years ago
Dragonfang
Alright I am ready when you are.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Mikal 4 years ago
Mikal
TorvaldDragonfangTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: This one was hard to vote on. Both sides extremely well presented. Arguments to Con just due to the fact that his arguments were more rounded and concise. Some of pros arguments were a tad bit off and a little confusing, I also believe Con adequately addressed all of his claims. I also think pro tried to strawman some of the points con brought up.
Vote Placed by Bruinshockeyfan 4 years ago
Bruinshockeyfan
TorvaldDragonfangTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Pros arguments where confusing and not as clear as cons. I found of pros arguments to be rather absurd. I like how con was more straight forward than pro. Nice job con.
Vote Placed by Shadowguynick 4 years ago
Shadowguynick
TorvaldDragonfangTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: arguments to con for two reasons 1. pro's arguments were confusing. I had a hard time reading them. 2. torvald refuted his points, and pro made ridiculous assertions at points.
Vote Placed by MassiveDump 4 years ago
MassiveDump
TorvaldDragonfangTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Holy shit.