The Instigator
AussiePotato
Pro (for)
The Contender
Tyler151
Con (against)

Gay Rights Debate (Please no religious arguments)

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
AussiePotato has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/10/2018 Category: Society
Updated: 5 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 344 times Debate No: 107848
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (5)
Votes (0)

 

AussiePotato

Pro

Please type "I accept your debate" so I know you are not a troll and then type in your introduction, opening statements are for the next three rounds. Hello! Today and for the next few days I would like to debate about Gay Rights without religious arguments because not everyone in Christian (or other Religions that do not support gay rights) considering I am a Atheist . I say Gay Rights are good and in this debate I will explain why, you want to prepare because I will gather up a reasonable amount of information in hope to win this debate.

-Good luck
Tyler151

Con

I accept your debate.
Debate Round No. 1
AussiePotato

Pro

First of all being gay is not something you cannot control, it may not be considered a mental disorder but it should be a basic human right that we all have the will to love whoever we want. I see no reason that people must be restricted due to their love preference and I say everybody should be free. This is a serious problem but I support all gay people because I have no problem with them, sure if a girl asks me out I will say no but I won't hate on them because they could not control it.

Being gay should be fine and if you do not like it, don't do it! It is as simple as that if you are forced into a wrong and right for dating isn't that a little unfair? You get to date who you want most likely (straight people) so why not the gays?
Tyler151

Con

Actually on the contrary, a business can fire you for having a tattoo. Having a tattoo is a choice. A business cannot fire you for being black. Being black is not a choice. Now, a business can fire you for being gay because being gay is a choice. The same goes for same sex marriage. First you let them marry, people will start marrying dogs and cats. Also, it is not natural, but I know what you will say. "But we see it in other species too" well great argument with one hole in it. We see cannibalism in other species! We see sharks eating their own babies! Should we do it too? No! Scientific proof shows that it is a choice. Also, people get married to have children. I know you said no religous arguments, and this not one, however it says in many religous texts that it is immoral, and these texts were written thousands of years ago. Now you have people saying that they are born being gay. At some point they will choose to be. Out DNA wants us to have children. Why on god"s green earth would our own dna want us to be gay if then we could not have children. Now. Is there a possibility that it is a choice? Do you want to tell me that everyone who is gay is just "born with it" I want you to tell me. Do you think there is a sliver of possibility that it is a choice?
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Amphia 5 months ago
Amphia
People don't get married to just have children. Think about the people who marry and never have children--by CHOICE. Or a couple of 80 year olds who marry and cannot have children due to age,. Would you say their marriage is thus invalid? Marriage is supposed to be for love.
Posted by AussiePotato 5 months ago
AussiePotato
You do not post arguments in the comments...
Posted by John_C_1812 5 months ago
John_C_1812
I would like to take the debate. However I have been accused of being a troll, as well as gay. My Mulier accused of being lesbian, so I will post my argument in advance in the comments and allow you liberty to decide. It is only the accusation of gay that came with a verbal warning to me, not choice. The accusation made clear its only purpose will be used to destroy me, either to be murdered, or force me to end my own life. The threat had no other purpose but public humiliation, and religious distain with no fears or recognition of possible legal retaliation accusers. Bosting of a new unprovable form of personal attack.

The argument gay, lesbian rights is not about the obligations to legal grounds of plagiarism, and attack on well-established precedent of a pre-united State likelihood. It should be, it is not. This civil attack is just something else never set as a united states to all people to spite the public accusations made in efforts to shape opinion.
Posted by John_C_1812 5 months ago
John_C_1812
As soon as the word right is used in combination of Gay and Lesbian a United State must be displayed as common defense to the general welfare, by the creator, something, anything that can then be used place by any governing agency who has civil authority in United State. This as a recourse in the general acts against public welfare as Right made in citation reference to this United States Constitutional Right. A united states can only take place when a United States is presented by representation, by constitutional order this means proof must be found, proof must be evident to the formation of a united states, with no a criminal accusation entwined by allegation made of criminal act, as this by legal precedent can never be used to form a common impartial goal or United States. Otherwise the whole process is split from the establishing any unity, by the presumption of innocents over guilt. Choices like innocents or guilt making it impossible for any united states to ever reach formation so it might be presented to the public. This describes is instigation to a covert Civil War with no end.
Posted by John_C_1812 5 months ago
John_C_1812
The communities who have aided though with good intention had in fact help directed United States Civil War against many, and not one untitled state formed by nations of written Constitution. The only legal reason states like Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, and the sum 37 other states had any right by law and Constitution to address the likelihood of marriage at all. Was the natural was subject to births of children by couples consummated by witness in the act of union made between man and woman. People can act as a witness when people are engaged in meetings of physical encounters. This is no question of equality it is legal justification of personal instruction. All States Failed in meeting this minimal requirement to form a union of United State as common defense when directed by Civil War. This is not the first time a failure has been used as a democratic domestic act of aggression made directly against the United States.
Civil attacks have taken place over Centralized registered receipts as Federal Note, not single state printed money.

Civil attacks have taken place over Constitutional formation of united state created by Presidency as opposition to Prasederaship. (Pardon the new word used to set authority if new Title.)
Civil attack have taken place over United State set by governed enforcement confessions. (Note the two confessions most frequently called on to be made by the public are abortion and death penalty.)
We debate a matter of public grievance. Not Civil Right.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.