The Instigator
Finalfan
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Spiritualthinker2
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Gay Marriage

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/25/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 824 times Debate No: 70693
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (28)
Votes (0)

 

Finalfan

Pro

I would like to challenge you to a debate sir. I will defend the rights for gays to marry! No need to use marriage as a weapon against diversity! Regardless of any of our opinions I do not believe there is a person alive that should have the authority to stop you from marriage of you are consenting legal adults!
Spiritualthinker2

Con

I accept your challenge. I know this is a sensitive topic for many so I hope this debate remains civil. Although I'm a Christian that takes the Bible seriously, my goal is to argue against same-sex marriage WITHOUT USING the Bible for I believe I can make a strong case without it. I might refer to the Bible as merely a reference tool but my argument will not be built on it.
Debate Round No. 1
Finalfan

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for accepting this challenge!
This debate should remain controlled and civil.

Reasons to allow gay marriage:

1. Adoption: A common argument against gay marriage has been procreation. Somehow marriage is a gift to those who add to the already grotesque population crisis. Over population could easily be the foundation for most of our societal woes and should be recognized in this light. That being said, providing benefits and support for same sex adoption while allowing the tradition of marriage can benefit us as a whole. It can also be a small solution towards population control end maybe even provide a secure loving home for a child who may otherwise be left in the system.

http://www.overpopulation.org...
http://www.lifelongadoptions.com...
http://www.acf.hhs.gov...

2. Progression: One aspect to this you may not be familiar with is the international reputation and overall opinion of this "great" country we live in. How does the rest of the world view us? My concern is that we should reflect on our actions and truly decide if we are worthy of the title. Our history is paved with atrocity and discrimination. It is a stain on our past and we have progressed too far to allow the same bully tactics that shame our nation! It is clear that my opponent must explain the difference between gay rights and the rights of women and African Americans. How is this not about civil rights? Isn't this a blatant disruption of the freedom for minorities?

http://dictionary.reference.com...
http://www.pewglobal.org...

3. Authority: Remember the story of the boy who cried wolf? To me that was as much of a story about teaching children the dangers of lying as it is proving the importance of discretion with authority! Right now signs point to this being the case with gay marriage. One of my favorite sayings is "pick your battles"; Is this really a wolf worth crying about? If not should I take you seriously at all? That is the dangers of micro managing a country and If you are deciding on laws and regulations it should always be quality over quantity.
The US Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in the 1974 case Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur that the "freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause." US District Judge Vaughn Walker wrote on Aug. 4, 2010 that Prop. 8 in California banning gay marriage was "unconstitutional under both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses." [41] The Due Process Clause in both the Fifth and 14th Amendments of the US Constitution states that no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." [111] The Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment states that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."http://gaymarriage.procon.org...

4. Sanctity of Marriage: Many claim the "sanctity of marriage" would be tarnished by the admittance of homosexuals. I would like to counter that by saying it would in fact be tarnished by not allowing them to marry. I don't see marriage as an exclusive social club. It is a tradition of strengthening the bonds between two people who love each other. When I got married I did not care about the politics. I cared about my wife. It is a tradition of love not exclusivity! If people are only getting married because they can (drunk in Vegas, green card, pregnancy wedding), while two people who love each other cannot. That would degrade the nature of the ritual and could bring up whether or not marriage should be severely limited for everyone.

http://abcnews.go.com...
http://www.clarkcountynv.gov...

5. Empathy: I wont throw out the word homophobic because I know that's like saying Nazi to people who blindly follow a religion however I'm going to have to let you tell me what empathy means to you.

Empathy: The action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner

6. Economical: It is statistically proven that allowing gay marriage benefits and stimulates the economy. Cutting Government spending in some areas and while boosting tax revenue and state economies. Studies have shown that it could even have a positive affect on the deficit. Also lets not forget the obvious benefit to the wedding industry. Seems like a win, win, win, win.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

7. Freedom of Religion: You made it clear that you were not using the bible to help win this debate. In order for you to understand my position you need to understand, I am not Christian nor do I look to the bible for answers in my life. I do however think it is important for both of us to find out; Does Christianity/Religion have a big part in this topic? I honestly can't think of any other reason (besides homophobia)

Cheers
Spiritualthinker2

Con

Once again I hope this debate remains civil because I know this is an emotional topic. Instead of directly rebutting your argument, I want to lay mine out first.

There exists no such thing as "same-sex" marriage. Although marriage licenses are being issued by some state governments to homosexual couples, there are in reality no homosexual marriages"never were, are not now, never will be. Marriage is an institution ordained by God in Genesis: "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh," and reaffirmed by Jesus in Matthew 19:4-6. All societies throughout recorded history have publicly recognized the institution of marriage as a sexually complementary public institution. The government's obligation is merely to recognize legally what marriage actually is. The government has no business creating an entirely new and destructive institution and then attaching to it the name of marriage.

What is Marriage?
Marriage is a "socially approved intercourse between a woman and a man, conceived both as a personal relationship and as an institution, primarily such that any children resulting from the union are"and are understood by the society to be"emotionally, morally, practically, and legally affiliated with both of the parents." ---David Blankenhorn (homosexual activist). Marriage is not solely or centrally about love. It is centrally concerned with children and their connection to their biological parents. The state has no interest or investment in whether couples love each other. If marriage were solely or even centrally about love and had no connection to children, the state would have no interest in or business being
involved with marriage.

* Adopted children are not being raised by their biological parents and yet society recognizes those families, so why not legally recognize families led by homosexuals? Adoption historically understood, was not the ideal context for children, but rather a benevolent way for society to accommodate the failures or tragedies in life that leave some children without the nurturance of their biological families. We as a society should not sanction the deliberate creation of children who will not be raised by either their mothers or fathers and same-sex adoption always denies children at least a mother or father. How is that a good thing?

* Society allows marriages for couples who are infertile or who choose to remain childless, so why not permit homosexual marriages that cannot produce children? The government sanctions the type of relationship that has the capacity to produce children. The government is not interested in compelling procreation, but rather in supporting the type of relationship that procreates.

What are the current requirements for government-sanctioned marriage? Except in the states in which activist judges have overruled the will of the people, the current requirements for government-approved marriages include the following:

" Numbers of partners"marriage is limited to two partners, therefore no polygamous marriages.
" Consanguinity"partners cannot be closely related by blood, therefore no incestuous marriages.
" Minimum age"partners must be of major age, therefore no pedophiliac marriages.
" Sexual complementarity"partners must be of opposite sexes, therefore no homosexual marriages.

What are the justifications for these requirements or criteria? Society has concluded that the requirements regarding numbers of partners, consanguinity, minimum age, and sexual complementarity best serve the needs of children and therefore best serve the needs of society.

Why is the state involved in sanctioning marriage? The state is involved in marriage for two inter-related reasons: 1. The state wants to encourage, support, and sustain that institution which best serves the needs of children. 2. The state is concerned about what institution best serves the needs of children because that which best serves the needs of children, best serves the needs of a healthy society.

Is access to marriage a civil right? No, access to marriage is not a civil right. Our civil rights are very specific rights that are accorded to individuals because of their status as humans. These rights are based on universal characteristics, not on feelings, desires, "orientations," or volitional conduct. Our civil rights are the following: freedom of religion; freedom of speech; freedom of press; freedom of assembly; the right to vote; the right to life; right to have fire arms; freedom from involuntary servitude; the right to equality in public places; the right to due process of law; the right to equal protection under the law. Marriage is an institution, not a civil right. The government can legitimately define an institution and limit its
membership in accordance with that definition.

Do current marital requirements violate civil rights? Current marital requirements do not violate civil rights. Every individual who fulfills the requirements or conditions that society has deemed essential to the institution of marriage has equal access to marriage. What homosexuals are actually demanding is that they be permitted to redefine marriage"to eliminate one of the conditions that society views as central to marriage: sexual complementarity. Similarly, polyamorous people who love more than one person cannot redefine marriage by eliminating the criterion of numbers of partners. And incestuous couples cannot redefine marriage by eliminating the criterion regarding close blood kinship. And those who believe they are in love with minors cannot eliminate the criterion of minimum age. None of these groups of people are being denied their civil rights even though they cannot get married. They are being prevented from unilaterally redefining marriage which is a public institution that affects the civic good.

Is the sexual complementarity requirement equivalent to anti-miscegenation laws (i.e. Are laws that ban "same-sex marriage" equivalent to laws that banned interracial marriage?) Laws that permit only heterosexual marriages are not equivalent to laws that banned interracial marriage because "sexual orientation" is not equivalent to race. Laws banning interracial marriages were based on the erroneous belief that whites and blacks are by nature different, when, in fact, whites and blacks are not by nature different. Laws that permit only heterosexual marriages are based on the true belief that men and women are by nature different. Therefore, it is not only permissible, but essential that laws that regulate marriage take into account the very real differences between men and women. Thomas Sowell explains that

"The argument that current marriage laws "discriminate" against homosexuals confuses discrimination against people with making distinctions among different kinds of behavior. All laws distinguish among different kinds of behavior."

A black man who wants to marry a white woman is seeking to do the same action that a white man who wants to marry a white woman seeks to do. A law that prohibits an interracial marriage is wrong because it is based on who the person is, not on what he seeks to do. But, if a man wants to marry a man, he is seeking to do an entirely different action from that which a man who wants to marry a woman seeks to do. A law that prohibits homosexual marriage is legitimate because it is based not on who the person is but rather on what he seeks to do. Any man may engage in the act of marrying a woman (if she is of age and not closely related by blood).

I have one more part I wanted to cover but I'm running low on space so I'll stop here. Thank you.

SOURCE: http://illinoisfamily.org...
Debate Round No. 2
Finalfan

Pro

Finalfan forfeited this round.
Spiritualthinker2

Con

It appears my opponent has forfeited this round. I don't know why but I hope everything is alright. Anyway, here's my rebuttal to my opponent's argument.

1. Adoption: The scientific fact is that children's health is endangered if they are adopted into households in which the
adults"as a direct consequence of their homosexual behavior"experience dramatically higher risks of domestic violence, mental illness, substance abuse, life-threatening disease, and premature death by up to 20 years. "The probability of violence occurring in a gay couple is mathematically double the probability of that in a heterosexual couple," write the editors of the National Gay & Lesbian Domestic Violence Network newsletter. The Journal of the American Medical Association reports that "people with same-sex sexual behavior are at greater risk for psychiatric disorders""including bipolar, obsessive-compulsive, and anxiety disorders, major depression, and substance abuse. The Medical Institute of Sexual Health reports: "Homosexual men are at significantly increased risk of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, anal cancer, gonorrhea and gastrointestinal infections as a result of their sexual practices. Women who have sex with women are at significantly increased risk of bacterial vaginosis, breast cancer and ovarian cancer than are heterosexual women." (Executive Summary, "Health Implications Associated with Homosexuality," 1999.) The Institute reports that "significantly higher percentages of homosexual men and women abuse drugs, alcohol and tobacco than do heterosexuals." Oxford University's International Journal of Epidemiology reports: "Life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. ... Nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 years will not reach their 65th birthday." Is it healthy for children to be adopted by adults whose lifestyle is characterized by promiscuity and the medical
hazards of multiple sex partners? A homosexual news magazine columnist in Detroit last month [February 2002] wrote regarding his partner: "This is his first relationship, so he has not yet been ruined by all the heartache, lies, deceit, and
game-playing that are the hallmark of gay relationships. ... A study I once read suggested that nine out of 10 gay men cheat on their lovers" [emphasis added]. The Centers for Disease Control warns that men who have sex with men "have large numbers of anonymous partners, which can result in rapid, extensive transmission of sexually transmitted diseases." This isn't all of the information so if anyone is interested, they can continue reading here: http://science.jburroughs.org...

2. Progression: Is it progressive to destroy a pillar that society itself is built upon? I do agree that one's image is important but one's image shouldn't come at the expense of pushing for something that will harm society in a major way. Once again, homosexuals are not denied the institution of marriage. The reason they do not want to follow the rules of the institution is because the rules do not suit their homosexual behavior. This is not a civil rights issue, but a behavioral issue.

3. Authority: Why is the state involved in sanctioning marriage? The state is involved in marriage for two inter-related reasons: 1. The state wants to encourage, support, and sustain that institution which best serves the needs of children. 2. The state is concerned about what institution best serves the needs of children because that which best serves the needs of children, best serves the needs of a healthy society. Is access to marriage a civil right? No, access to marriage is not a civil right. Our civil rights are very specific rights that are accorded to individuals because of their status as humans. These rights are based on universal characteristics, not on feelings, desires, "orientations," or volitional conduct. Our civil rights are the following: freedom of religion; freedom of speech; freedom of press; freedom of assembly; the right to vote; the right to life; right to have fire arms; freedom from involuntary servitude; the right to equality in public places; the right to due process of law; the right to equal protection under the law. Marriage is an institution, not a civil right. The government can legitimately define an institution and limit its membership in accordance with that definition. Do current marital requirements violate civil rights? Current marital requirements do not violate civil rights. Every individual who fulfills the requirements or conditions that society has deemed essential to the institution of marriage has equal access to marriage. What homosexuals are actually demanding is that they be permitted to redefine marriage"to eliminate one of the conditions that society views as central to marriage: sexual complementarity. Similarly, polyamorous people who love more than one person cannot redefine marriage by eliminating the criterion of numbers of partners. And incestuous couples cannot redefine marriage by eliminating the criterion regarding close blood kinship. And those who believe they are in love with minors cannot eliminate the criterion of minimum age. None of these groups of people are being denied their civil rights even though they cannot get married. They are being prevented from unilaterally redefining marriage which is a public institution that affects the civic good.

4. Sanctity of Marriage: Throughout history marriage has always been viewed as the joining of men and women. Why? Because society benefits when men and women get together and bring forth off-spring. Since homosexual unions never have that option, their unions cannot be called or seen as marriage. It is fair to give equal things equal value but it is unfair to give two unequal things the same value while calling them the same....in this case, equating unprofitable homosexual unions with profitable heterosexual unions.

5. Empathy: We can be empathetic towards something, but that doesn't necessarily mean that what we are empathetic towards is correct for us or society as a whole.

6. Economical: Although same-sex unions will pour money into the economy, the effects will not last. Just look at the places where same-sex marriage has been issued for more than a decade. Those place are still not doing to good financially. If homosexuals make up 2% of the American population, how is their money going to help stimulate the economy? Also, why not encourage more heterosexuals to get married if marriage money is going to help the economy? Heterosexuals make up a much more larger part of the population.

7. Freedom of Religion: Same sex unions will stiffen freedom of religion. All one must do is do an internet search of the cases brought against religious people and their businesses on behalf of homosexuals in places where same-sex marriage has been legalized. In ever place where same-sex marriage is the law of the land, any religion that teaches against such thing is automatically deemed wrong, not because that religion has been proven wrong, simply because the law now says so. Also, no government or culture is philosophically/religion neutral. That means someone's world views are going to win the government and culture and if the homosexual view wins, religious freedom that doesn't agree with the homosexual agenda automatically takes a back seat and in a way that is using the law and not debate to silence the opposition. You are now wrong simply because the law says so? No debate(s) regarding the matter? How is that fair in a so called free republic?

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
Finalfan

Pro

Finalfan forfeited this round.
Spiritualthinker2

Con

It appears that my opponent is not taking this debate seriously for some reason. Since my opponent has not posted any further arguments or rebuttals, there's really no reason for me to continue talking at this point. I hope my opponent is okay and I'm going to assume that he/she has a good reason for not responding on time.
Debate Round No. 4
Finalfan

Pro

I apologize to my opponent for my absence. I began this debate for one reason. To understand the controversy. I posted my arguments and was met with an obsolete definition of marriage, an argument about procreation and nonsense about child care. You made it clear that you think homosexuality is a choice. With that mindset there is no debate! The fact remains that this will be a frustrating topic to discuss because I have never seen an argument that comes close to denying homosexuals marriage. Every debate I have started on this topic spiraled into nowhere because my opponent has yet to help me understand why discrimination and oppression is a good thing! My opponent was so worried about this debate remaining civil, yet my ability to be polite on this subject is diminishing. I warned my opponent to leave procreation out of this. As soon as I saw that argument I wanted to explode with disappointment, I thought it would be better to just turn the other cheek but i'm tired of being polite! I have a strong urge to put a stop to bullying in any form. Apparently in this case.. The bully wins! BTW I want my opponent to do research as if he was pro gay marriage. No really. Use the same resources you used to find statistics on homosexual adoption, child human trafficking (aka foster care) and countries that allow gay marriage. Every statistic I have been given on this subject is completely contradictory! You can find evidence that gays are horribly people who want to eat children. While finding information that homosexuals actually make better parents that heterosexuals.
Spiritualthinker2

Con

Conclusion:

Before I begin let me say that I'm sure that the vast majority of homosexuals are not horrible people and that is not what this debate is about. Homosexuals are not being denied the institution of marriage. The problem is that the institution doesn't approve of homosexual behavior and just because an institution will not tolerate your behavior doesn't mean you're outright being denied access to said institution and it's benefits. The institution is not saying that people who experience homosexual desires cannot get married at all. The institution is simply saying that there is a criteria that must be followed because this criteria is what benefits all of society.

Answering Objections: Executive Summary

1. Don"t put discrimination in the Constitution! a. Too late"it"s already there. In fact, all laws discriminate! But it"s discrimination against behaviors not persons; and it"s with cause, not arbitrary. For example: i. The First Amendment discriminates against Muslims establishing a religion (a behavior), but it does not discriminate against Muslims as persons. ii. The 13th Amendment discriminates against businessmen taking slaves (a behavior), but not businessmen as persons.
b. Likewise, our marriage laws discriminate against the behaviors of homosexuals, polygamists, bigamists, adulterers, and the incestuous among us, but they do not discriminate against them as persons. c. Laws must protect citizens from harmful behaviors regardless of why people commit those behaviors.

2. But homosexuals are a minority class like blacks. a. Homosexuals are not a class of people, and neither are heterosexuals. We are males and females, not homosexuals or heterosexuals. Why classify people by sexual desires? b. You will find many former homosexuals. You will never find a former African-American. c. Committing homosexual acts is not the same as skin color or gender. Homosexual behavior is harmful; skin color or gender is not. And sexual behavior is always chosen (even if the desires are not). d. This issue is not about discriminating against people but against the potentially harmful behaviors of people. And all laws discriminate against behavior (see #1 above)

3. But homosexuals were born that way! a. The source of homosexual desires has not been determined. But even if there is a genetic component (although one wonders how it is passed on), those desires do not excuse behavior. b. An orientation toward homosexuality doesn't make the behavior morally right anymore than an orientation toward violence makes gay bashing morally right. c. We were all born with an orientation toward bad behavior. And desires, whatever their
source, do not excuse behavior. Should adults act on every desire they have? Of course not. In fact, the principled restraint of destructive desires is called CIVILIZATION!

4. Weren"t you born a heterosexual? a. No, I was born a male. b. My sexual behavior is chosen just like yours.

5. Opposing same-sex marriage is like opposing inter-racial marriage! a. No, ethnicity is irrelevant to coupling; gender is essential. (There"s only one race-- the human race-- but there are two genders.) b. Opposition to interracial (inter-ethnic) marriage is without merit. Men and women are designed for one another, so interethnic couplings are helpful. But homosexual couplings go against the natural design and are therefore harmful.

6. What about equal rights? a. Homosexuals already have them. Everyone has the same right to form relationships, but
no one has a right to have their relationships endorsed by the state. b. Everyone has the same right to marry the opposite sex; homosexuals don"t like their choices and thus want special rights. c. If we grant special rights for homosexuals, on what grounds can we deny special rights for consenting adults who desire other socially destructive or unhealthy relationships such as polygamy or incest?

7. It's unfair discrimination to prevent same-sex marriage. a. No one is being treated unfairly because everyone is playing by the same rules: we all have the same right to marry the opposite sex. b. It is not unfair to define who does and doesn't qualify as a spouse. When the state refuses to recognize a marriage between a father and daughter, it is not discriminating
unfairly. It is wisely protecting society by choosing not to sanction an unhealthy and socially destructive relationship. For the same reasons the state should not recognize homosexual relationships. c. Marriage, by design, is between an unrelated man and woman. The state should simply recognize the natural design of marriage; it should not re-define marriage.

8. It"s bigotry to prevent same-sex marriage! a. No, it"s sound judgment based on the evidence that same-sex marriage would be harmful, while traditional marriage is healthy and helpful. b. This argument, like others, presupposes a moral standard. (Homosexual activists acknowledge that bigotry violates the Moral Law" why don"t they admit the same with
regard to homosexual behavior?)

9. Why allow traditional marriage but prevent same-sex marriage? a. Because traditional marriage is our national immune system. It protects us from disease and social costs. When our marriages are strong, our society is strong. When our
marriages are weak, we all suffer. b. Traditional marriage: i. Improves health and lengthens the life span of the man and the woman. ii. Protects women from uncommitted men. iii. Lowers welfare costs to society. iv. Lowers the crime rate (marriage civilizes men and focuses them on productive pursuits). v. Procreates and encourages an adequate replacement birth rate c. Children from traditional marriage homes are: i. Seven times less likely to live in poverty ii. Six times less likely to commit suicide iii. Less than half as likely to commit crime iv. Less than half as likely to become pregnant out of wedlock v. Healthier physically and emotionally when they reach adulthood vi. Do better academically and socially d. Children from fatherless homes account for: i. 60% of America's rapists ii. 63% of America"s youth suicides iii. 70% of America"s long-term prison inmates iv. 70% of America"s reform school attendees v. 71% of America"s teenage pregnancies vi. 71% of America"s high school dropouts vii. 72% of America"s adolescent murderers viii. 85% of America"s youth prisoners ix. 85% of America"s youth with behavioral disorders x. 90% of America"s runaways e. Same-sex marriage would not benefit, but hurt traditional marriage and society.

10. How could allowing same-sex marriage possibly hurt marriage and society? There is no neutrality on moral issues. By legalizing same-sex marriage, the state would be approving of them and therefore encouraging them. Laws help change attitudes and encourage good (or bad) behavior. In other words, the law is a great teacher. Many people believe that whatever is legal is moral, and whatever is illegal is immoral. Same-sex marriage will: a. Trivialize the importance of marriage, leading to increased Illegitimacy and social costs. i. Elevating homosexual unions to the level of heterosexual marriage would further downgrade the perceived importance of marriage in our culture. Marriage will be seen as just about coupling rather than procreation. ii. This is the case in Norway where same-sex marriage has been in place since the
early nineties. Illegitimacy is exploding partly because people no longer connect marriage to childbearing (see # 14 below).
iii. Illegitimacy hurts everyone via increased crime and social welfare costs (not to mention the direct harm to children who are denied either a Mom or a Dad). b. Lead to higher medical and health insurance costs. i. We would likely see an increase in homosexual behavior following the endorsement of same-sex marriage like we saw a sharp rise in abortion following Roe v. Wade. ii.

There's more (6 more points I wanted to make and point 10 is not finished) but I'm pressed for space so I'll stop here.
Debate Round No. 5
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Spiritualthinker2 1 year ago
Spiritualthinker2
Thanks for the compliment and it means a lot coming from someone who doesn't agree with me. I don't agree with homosexual behavior but at the same time I don't wish any homosexuals any ill will. I think homosexuals are people who are emotionally and spiritually hurt, confused, and simply want to be loved and accepted. I personally want to help homosexuals find the underlying cause of their homosexual desires because I believe their desires stem from some type of emotional/sexual traumatic event from their past that they're not correctly dealing with and as a result......they're experiencing homosexual desires.
Posted by Finalfan 1 year ago
Finalfan
All I can say is even if I don't agree with you, I really am enjoying this back and forth! I love to argue, it may not be up to DDO standards as far as composition goes, but I know I can hold down an argument pretty well and you seem to stay on course even when your opponent is reacting like a lunatic lol
Posted by Spiritualthinker2 1 year ago
Spiritualthinker2
Going back to what I said in my first comment I want to be clear about something. I do believe in prayer. I just don't believe in praying the sins away for we will always be tempted by something that is sinful until the day we die. I pray that I will not give into sinful temptations.
Posted by Spiritualthinker2 1 year ago
Spiritualthinker2
To answer your second comment: I did research the "homosexuality is not a mental disorder" side of the argument but here's my problem. Let's assume for the moment that in 1974 the APA dropped homosexuality from their book of mental disorders because of pressure from the homosexual community. If the APA were not able to come to their own conclusion without undue influence from the homosexual community, then how can anyone say that homosexuality is not a mental disorder? People can easily say that homosexuality is not a mental disorder now but that would be hard to do because the information that may support such a claim maybe politicized in order to appease homosexuals and their political advocates. I think things would have been better for the homosexual community if they left the APA alone and let them come to the conclusion that homosexuality is not a mental disorder instead of bullying them into submission and then claiming homosexuality is not a mental disorder. The current results are to politically tainted to be trusted.

Here's a person question. If you were born a male (for example) but as you got older your sexual desires urged you to go against the biological make up of your body (as in engage in homosexual sex), how is that not a mental disorder? Your sexual desires are urging you to engage in a type of sex your body was not naturally meant to engage in. How is that not a mental disorder or at least a psychological problem? If a man doesn't desire to sexually penetrate a woman, something is usually wrong with him psychologically. If a woman doesn't desire to be sexually penetrated by a man, something is usually wrong with her psychologically. It's only natural that men and women engage in sexual activity but not all sexual activities are natural.
Posted by Spiritualthinker2 1 year ago
Spiritualthinker2
To answer your first comment: Since homosexuality is really psychological in it's nature, we should gather all the homosexuals together and have a sit down. Homosexuality is the effect so we should figure out the cause and it varies from person to person. Maybe the homosexual was molested as a child, or his/her father wasn't part of their life growing up, or maybe their mother had something to do with it, I personally don't know but the goal would be to find out. Although I'm a Christian, I don't believe in "praying the gay away" because if it were that simple, any sin could simply be successfully prayed away. To get rid of unwanted desires (whatever they maybe) takes time and hard work. I believe that homosexuals have a lot of un-faced demons and if I could I would help those homosexuals face and defeat their demons with the help of Christ Jesus.
Posted by Finalfan 1 year ago
Finalfan
Now that that's out of my system
"While some still believe homosexuality is a mental disorder, the current research and clinical literature demonstrate that same-sex sexual and romantic attractions, feelings, and behaviors are normal and positive variations of human sexuality, reflecting the official positions of the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association"-expert
So what you did was Google "Homosexuality is a mental disorder" I Googled "Homosexuality is NOT a mental illness" Have you ever thought of doing the same? No? That my friend is homophobia! You wouldn't want the truth unless it entertains your preconceived notions!
Posted by Finalfan 1 year ago
Finalfan
You know what we should do? Capture all of the gays. Round them up one by one and make them kiss Meagan Fox! That will do the trick.. if not electroshock therapy could work too.. or how about a lobotomy, we could scoop the gay right out of them! I think were on to something here! Actually I just thought of it! Why don't you try prayer! Yeah prayer does wonders for expelling Demons. The power of Christ compels you to like vagina! Whew ok I feel a lot better now! That's what you get for disagreeing to agree to disagree!
Posted by Spiritualthinker2 1 year ago
Spiritualthinker2
Speaking of psychology, did you know that until 1974 homosexuality was considered a a mental illness by the APA? What happened? Did the APA, through scientific research, find out they were wrong? No.

Here's a small insert from Dr. Ronald Bayer. He's a pro-homosexual psychiatrist and he described what actually occurred in his book, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnoses. (1981)

In Chapter 4, "Diagnostic Politics: Homosexuality and the American Psychiatric Association," Dr. Bayer says that the first attack by homosexual activists against the APA began in 1970 when this organization held its convention in San Francisco. Homosexual activists decided to disrupt the conference by interrupting speakers and shouting down and ridiculing psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder. In 1971, homosexual activist Frank Kameny worked with the Gay Liberation Front collective to demonstrate against the APA's convention. At the 1971 conference, Kamney grabbed the microphone and yelled, "Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a decleration of war against you."

Homosexuals forged APA credentials and gained access to exhibit areas in the conference. They threatened anyone who claimed that homosexuals needed to be cured. Kamney had found an ally inside of the APA named Kent Robinson who helped the homosexual activist present his demand that homosexualiy be removed from the DSM. At the 1972 convntion, homosexual activists were permitted to set up a display booth, entitled "Gay, Proud, and Healthy."

Kameny was then permitted to be part of a panel of psychiatrists who were to discuss homosexuality. The effort to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from the DSM was the result of power politics, threats, and intimidation, not scientific discoveries.

(end quote)

So technically, homosexuality is a mental illness.
Posted by Finalfan 1 year ago
Finalfan
Yeah! We are very different people! You know that's only your opinion right? I think you may be putting way too much effort into fabricating a justification for your discriminatory behavior. What seems to be innate in all humans is that we are afraid of what we don't understand. That's the bottom line. You don't understand homosexuality therefore you are afraid of it (hence homophobia) You can deny it all you want but its psychology 101.
Posted by Spiritualthinker2 1 year ago
Spiritualthinker2
Identifying your problem is quite simple. For some psychological reason you don't find the opposite sex sexually attractive. I can sit here and try to list all of the reasons why but I doubt if you will be honest with me plus I might trigger a nerve that might bring up something painful that maybe you've tried to keep buried. Also, you (being a homosexual) have intertwined human dignity with human sexuality. This is one reason why homosexuals feel that if you insult their homosexuality, you have insulted their dignity when that's really not the case at all. Sexuality does not depend upon human dignity and vice versa but homosexuals do not see it that way. This is another reason why homosexuals view themselves as an ethnic group that is on par with blacks, whites, Jews, Asians, Hispanics, and so on. Homosexuals think that their homosexuality is innate when once again that's not true. The bottom line is that homosexuals have bought into a lot of lies regarding their homosexuality and as a result they view themselves as victims that have been oppressed by an unfair homophobic society. Above all, homosexuals feel pent up inside for constantly trying to hide their homosexuality and they want to be freely accepted by society and they want their destructive behavior viewed as normal even if it means punishing those who still believe their behavior is taboo and medically dangerous.
No votes have been placed for this debate.