The Instigator
Ariesx
Pro (for)
Winning
7 Points
The Contender
Squirrelnuts57
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Gay Marriage should be legalized in America

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Ariesx
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/14/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 797 times Debate No: 65183
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

Ariesx

Pro

Gay Marriage should be legalized in America, because gay people are not a threat. It was a genetic mutation in them that makes them attracted to there same gender. It is as genetic as race, eye color, and hair.
Squirrelnuts57

Con

My first reason for why I beleive that gay marriage should not be legalized in America, is that the legalization and "okay"ing of homosexuality, is a doorway to other immoral sexual relations (apologiez for the run-on sentence). Homosexuality, has been seen as an immoral sexual relation, for quite a long time. It was down there in the "weird and wrong" categories of sex, along with rape and beastiality. It stayed there for a while, the odd sexual acts of the Romans, and Egyptians, up until the early 1900s rolled around and it slowly grossed in popularity from then on. More and more people have been joinning the band-wagon that is gay rights, saying things like, "it's just love", "they're people too", "how would you feel if someone told you who you can or can't love", etc. Well, one of the ways I see it is that, soon the people that wish that beastiality would be okay will think, "Hey, if the gays can earn the okay of the world, why can't I?" and they'll begin their own campaign. People will most likely join in on saying "It's okay, love of animals is natural," "People have been doing it for years," (which is true, and homosexuality, and rape have been around for years as well) "They should have there rights too!", soon, the animal lovers (far worse than the PETA kind) will have their own spot on the sexual morality board. After that, yes, the rapists go after their rights. They say, that because they "love" the person, they should be able to rape whoever they want, and it should be okay . You se if gay rights is okayed by everyone in theis nation, other people will get the idea that their immoral acts, far beyond the idea of homosexuality, are okay. They'll chase their "rights", and most likely will acheive them, just like the gays. It may sound crazy and extreme, but then again a couple decades ago, the gays getting rights seemed extreme too. I hand it to pro.
Debate Round No. 1
Ariesx

Pro

Ariesx forfeited this round.
Squirrelnuts57

Con

I wasn't expecting this opponent to forfeit.
Well, anyways, my second argument is about the spread of disease. More people would get AIDs, HIV, and other std's.
More people would die faster and the population would sink. More and more people will start to get into homosexuality, and the population will drop very low. The risk of spreading of disease would be much higher.
I hand it to pro...
Debate Round No. 2
Ariesx

Pro

Sorry for the forfeit. I had a very busy week, but I would like to add my attack of my opponent's arguments.

My opponent says in round 1 that homosexuality is a doorway to immoral sex traditions. My opponent than clearly has no knowledge of what he is talkies about. Verified by scientists around the world, gay people are born with a different set of chromosomes which allow them to be attracted to the same sex. If that doesn't change your mind, you can research about a gay converter camp between 1950s, and 1980s. The whole point of the camp was to convert gay men to straight men. After the camp was done, 1% of the men said that they were straight.

My opponent's second argument is about AIDS in gay people. You also have to understand that straight people can get the disease by having sex. This argument is irrelevant, because his logic also applies to straight people. Just because their is a possibility of std, doesn't mean it should be outlawed, because than straight marriage should be illegal.
Squirrelnuts57

Con

Yes, I do know that couples of the opposite sex get AIDs too. But in homosexuality, it's spread would be almost assured between the couples (I assume you would know why).
I found your genetic study argument to be interesting though, so I did a bit of research on it. An online newspaper article from the UK says that through more studies, they found "That while gay men share similar genetic make-up, it only accounts for 40 per cent of chance of a man being homosexual". I looked through the article some more and also found “We don’t think genetics is the whole story. It’s not. We have a gene that contributes to homosexuality but you could say it is linked to heterosexuality. It is the variation.” And another line that sparked my interest was, “No-body has found something like this in women,” The article also says that it is slightly due to the rising in the womb, and that it may cause more feminism. Early on in the article, it does say that it has nothing to do with choice, which I disagree with but I will get into that a bit later. Now of course, I can't just go off of one article. So I looked some more. I found an article saying “At best genetics is a minor factor”. In this article, a study was done through a set of twins. It read, "Because identical twins are always genetically identical, homosexuality cannot be genetically dictated. 'No-one is born gay,' he notes. 'The predominant things that create homosexuality in one identical twin and not in the other have to be post-birth factors.'" The list went on with some more things, but I found this to be the most interesting detail.
Now, earlier I said I disagree with homosexuality having nothing to do with choice. This is definitely not true in one case, which is when the person is sexually abused by the opposite sex and they find themselves afraid, or sick of the other sex. Since this is not part of my argument I will just add some sites... http://www.wnd.com...







Here are my sources for my arguments...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
"Being Homosexual Is Only Partly Due to Gay Gene, Research Finds." The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group, 11 Nov. 0059. Web. 21 Nov. 2014.

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org...
"Identical Twin Studies Prove Homosexuality Is Not Genetic."OrthodoxNetcom Blog. N.p., n.d. Web. 24 Nov. 2014.

Debate Round No. 3
Ariesx

Pro

My opponent bought my curiosity in just a matter of seconds, as I read through his case. But I looked at his sources. I looked through his argument on a man suffering from sexual abuse. I checked the person that wrote the article. He doesn't have a phd, he hasn't cited any people that support his theories. How can we trust what he says. Therefore what my opponent has said is irrelevant. The majority of the scientific community has verified that gay men hold female traits. I don't have any science backing up the idea of getting scared of the other sex. I have no idea where he is getting his articles, but what I can say is it is absurd. Females not getting the same effect is irrelevant to gayness. We can get into lesbians in another debate, but this debate is not gays. Vote con, because con has a scientific community to back up his claims. Vote con, because con doesn't get fake scientists to support what their saying.
Squirrelnuts57

Con

Thank you pro for this debate. I hope you enjoyed the debate as well. The last thing I have to say is not for all people on this site, but for my fellow Christians. It does in fact say that homosexuality is wrong in the Bible. Genesis 13, 2 Peter 2, and Leviticus 20:13 are just a few areas in the Bible that talk about homosexuality. Well, that's all for me. Again, thanks Ariesx for the debate.
I hand it to you voters!
Debate Round No. 4
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Squirrelnuts57 2 years ago
Squirrelnuts57
@o0Jeaniie0o, I did not add the final part to gain the bias of other Christians, it was to let the pro-gay Christians know that it is a sin. Thank you though for even considering to give me points. I entered this debate knowing it would be a struggle, but anyways thanks for the consideration.
Posted by Batman3773 2 years ago
Batman3773
Gay people were not genticly mutated they chose to be that way.
Posted by Squirrelnuts57 2 years ago
Squirrelnuts57
Also the spell check didn't pick up on theis. I'm starting to have doubts about spellcheck.
Posted by Squirrelnuts57 2 years ago
Squirrelnuts57
Apologies, I wrote se instead of see in my first argument. I understand if you count it against me in voting.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by o0jeannie0o 2 years ago
o0jeannie0o
AriesxSquirrelnuts57Tied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con almost got some points as pro forfeited a round until you cited the bible in your last segment. That is just asking for bias and support from Christians, So you will get bias from me a non-christian. As for the actual debate, Cons sources where not backed up points to pro. STD argument is irrelevant, as science grows (and hetero anal intercourse popularity does too) so does understanding of transfer. equal to rape and animal abuse eh? I'm kinda sad pro didn't tackle this for me but there is a matter of consent. Rape victims dont consent to being raped, and animals dont have the ability to consent to sex. This is why its illegal to do it, not because its icky. Adult homosexuals can clearly consent to sexual relations.