The Instigator
AnaBellaTheNerd
Pro (for)
Winning
36 Points
The Contender
Danieljosh
Con (against)
Losing
4 Points

Gay Rights

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 8 votes the winner is...
AnaBellaTheNerd
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/7/2013 Category: People
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,360 times Debate No: 38627
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (8)

 

AnaBellaTheNerd

Pro

Gays rights should be allowed! This is not considered a sin neither a sign of believing in Satan. These are just two people who have found love. Imagine a world where straight people were frowned upon? This is one of the reasons many suicides are committed today.
Danieljosh

Con

Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.

Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can"t legally get married because the world needs more children.

Obviously, gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage is allowed, since Britney Spears" 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn"t changed at all; women are property, blacks can"t marry whites, and divorce is illegal.

Gay marriage should be decided by people, not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.

Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That"s why we have only one religion in America.

Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That"s why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven"t adapted to things like cars or longer life-spans.

Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "separate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Separate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as separate marriages for gays and lesbians will.
12 reasons why gay should be illegal
Debate Round No. 1
AnaBellaTheNerd

Pro

I can see what you're trying to say, but I strongly disagree with some, wait, most, of your points. Especially since you just copied and pasted from http://www.blameitonthevoices.com... *cough* Way to think *cough*

"Gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children"
This isn't really true. Just because your parents are gay/straight doesn't mean you have to follow in their footsteps. Imagine a straight couple, and their child chooses their sexual orientation as gay. That isn't raising them to be straight. They choose their own path.

Marriage happens to be a union of love, not a union of gender. Imagine, if you really, really loved this person, and you weren't allowed to marry them. It would suck, wouldn't it? Why does it have to be specifically between a man and a women? You realize that's exactly what people were saying 60 years ago with black and white people, right?
Are you saying you would rather have 2 people of different genders that hate each other be married than two people of the same sex that love each other?
Danieljosh

Con

LOOOOOOL THIS A DEBATE: Finding useful facts to defend your opinion so....I don't really understand why you said I copied from the Internet. It's still defence and besides each of those points where taking from few people opinion in that website...3 and 8 are my points. Frequency of the pro-homosexual articles seen in Juneau Empire recently has excluded two important reasons why same sex marriage should not be legalized.

The first reason is God designed marriage to be between a man and women.

"6 But from the beginning of the creation, God "made them male and female." 7 "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife. (Mark 10:6-7, New King James version)

According to the Bible, homosexuality is immoral and is one of many sins that will keep mankind out of heaven.

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites". Will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Corinthians 6 :6-10, New King James Version)

The second reason is biology does not support homosexuality. First, God did not design males to have sexes with each other, and vise versa with females. Same gender sexes organs are incompatible with each other. Second, homosexuals cannot produce their own offspring, thus their genetic material is not passed on to the next generation. Therefore, they cannot claim they were born this way, since their parents were heterosexuals.

Same sexes marriage should not be made legal because it opposes God"s design for marriage, and is not biologically supported. Maybe Juneau Empire should do a 5 part series on the sanctity of marriage.

Sincerely,
Debate Round No. 2
AnaBellaTheNerd

Pro

Using the Old Testament to determine if something is a sin is simply a matter of human and not godly opinion. It"s meaningless and certainly not "the word of God". His teachings aren"t some basket of fruit for you to pick over. You either have to accept the old law in its entirety and start killing lots and lots of people or reject it in its entirety. Hand-picking the stuff you like is bogus, especially when you only pick the stuff that seems to legitimize your meanness to other people.

So the Old Testament is out.

It doesn"t matter anyway because Christ came and fulfilled it. He completed the Old Testament, so it"s done. He even said so in Matthew: "Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfill." True, he also said about the old law: "Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

So what, exactly, is he saying? That it"s cool to ignore the old law because he fulfilled it, or that we are required to keep even the "least" (meaning lesser) commandments in it?

Well, if he fulfilled it, then the point is mute. If it"s the other one, though, then we all suck because even the most devout Christians only keep the parts of the Old Testament that suit them.

Before we all start playing REM"s Losing My Religion, consider this: Denying someone the right to marry is not Christian, and certainly not American.
Danieljosh

Con

The Bible say my people lack knowledge. Seriously is like you don't know how to read or something, to be sincere with you if you win these debate doesn't mean you're right. I want to ask you something, Where you born by homosexual parents!? Is it even possible for same sex to give birth? No. If your parents were Same sex do you think you'll be in this world today I mean how would they even give birth to you in the first place? (I need an answer) Read this short poem 'Born a girl she claims to be a guy(bi), Ok. Taking back to her mothers womb for a rebirth. Born again as a guy he claims to be a girl(gay)'. Seriously what does this person want to really be? Some kind of mixture of girl and boy? If you understand the poem you should know what I mean. I see you're still a kid but I want to let you know few things about debating: The fact that I used Christianity to defend my opinion doesn't mean I'm cheating or I'm a Christian besides using the old testament doesn't make anything wrong it's still in the bible.

1.God doesn't condemn anyone for who he is; so if you're attracted to the same sex, that absolutely, unconditionally doesn't make you bad, evil or "un-Christian." On the other hand, let me note that I do consider hating, tormenting, or bullying people because of their sexual orientation to be distinctively "un-Christian" behavior. As Billy Graham has said, "God will not judge a Christian guilty for his or her involuntary feelings." But when it comes to 'Homosexuality' GOD is totally against it.Well, sorry that's GOD rule.

2. Gay marriage may be where it starts, but it wouldn't be where it ends. Once the definition of marriage is arbitrarily transformed to make gay activists happy, there's no chance it's going to stop there. For example, you could make a much better case for polygamy than you can for gay marriage. It has a much more robust historical tradition, it's more consistent with religious values, it produces children -- there simply is no compelling, logical reason why gay marriage should become the law of the land without also granting polygamy the same legal status.

3.If same-sex civil marriage becomes common, most same-sex couples with children would be lesbian couples. This would mean that we would have yet more children being raised apart from fathers. Among other things, we know that fathers excel in reducing antisocial behavior and delinquency in boys and sexual activity in girls.
What is fascinating is that fathers exercise a unique social and biological influence on their children. For instance, a recent study of father absence on girls found that girls who grew up apart from their biological father were much more likely to experience early puberty and a teen pregnancy than girls who spent their entire childhood in an intact family. This study, along with David Popenoe's work, suggests that a father's pheromones influence the biological development of his daughter, that a strong marriage provides a model for girls of what to look for in a man, and gives them the confidence to resist the sexual entreaties of their boyfriends.
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by neptune1bond 3 years ago
neptune1bond
Part 2
I also wanted to add that by denying the adoption of children by homosexuals, it actually encourages homosexuals to just get themselves (or a willing participant) pregnant and then raise the child themselves, which is something the government has no power to stop. Homosexuals will have children, like it or not, but by denying them adoption it is actually hurting orphaned children, not helping them. Not to mention the people who , through social and familial pressure, decide to *try* to be straight only to come out later when they have three kids that they end up leaving. How does it help those children that will now be in a single parent household because daddy or mommy couldn't pretend any more?
Posted by neptune1bond 3 years ago
neptune1bond
I'm not saying that accepting it will *stop* it, I'm saying that accepting it will make it less interesting and exciting and might actually decrease interest from those who experiment as a means to be subversive or from the excitement of engaging in something thought of as "taboo". There is no way to stop homosexuality and any attempts to subdue the behavior only makes the community push back harder. I personally don't care one way or another since I personally have no problems with homosexuals, I'm just pointing out the fact that,"any publicity is good publicity". It's like when rock music came out and they pushed so hard to stop it from happening, but in the process they only gave it tons of publicity and made it that much more interesting to teenagers who wanted to piss their parents off. Kids sometimes now use homosexuality in a similar way.

Most STDs are transmitted by irresponsible sexual behavior. If people were more educated, got tested, used protection, and acted responsibly, then it could be fixed or greatly diminished. Expecting people to *stop* being gay does nothing to actually prevent the spread of HIV. In fact, not allowing gays to marry actually encourages it in a way by not allowing the same possibilities of committed relationships. One of the best ways to prevent the spread of any STD, besides abstinence, is to engage in sex with only one partner. You cannot force abstinence, but we CAN encourage committed relationships.

As far as wanting what is best for children, if anyone *truly* wants what is best for orphaned children, then they would want them in loving homes. Denying a child a good home and a better environment than foster care doesn't make married couples want to adopt them any more. It is better to have them adopted by someone then not at all, and since that is the situation we're looking at, there is really no good argument against homosexuals adopting children.
Posted by MoralityProfessor 3 years ago
MoralityProfessor
I'm not sure if you caught the huge irony in your argument about accepting homosexuals in order to stop homosexuality, but my intention was not to compare homosexuality with drugs or smoking - rather to compare the 'taboo' of homosexuality to the 'taboo' of drugs and smoking. Your argument, in essence, was that one reason people become gay is because it is a rebellious behavior. Regardless of what my beliefs are on gay marriage, to ever claim that we should accept *anything* on the basis that it would *stop* that behavior is ridiculous, to say the least.
As for it being no more risky than heterosexual sex, studies report that gay men account for 61% of HIV infection, though they make up *less than 2% of the population*! By endorsing homosexuality we are not doing anyone any favors, as it is dangerous to those who practice it.

I'll concur with you on the validity of such studies. The day that study came out, so did several harsh critics denouncing it, one even labeling it as *insert profanity here*. I could not find one website that was pro-gay marriage saying the article had any credibility. (On the other hand, you most probably won't find any pro-traditional marriage websites citing studies contrary to their views either.) The problem with these kinds of studies is that the majority of them are there to suit an agenda.

However, the true fact of the matter is that we *do* want what is best for children. In regards to that, it actually *is* more difficult for a single parent to adopt. Why? Because we want children to be in the most optimal environment and the majority of the time that involves a home with one mother and one father.
Posted by neptune1bond 3 years ago
neptune1bond
@ MoralityProfessor
Homosexuality does not compare in the least to smoking and it most certainly doesn't compare with drugs. For one thing, you even admit that you question homosexual people's ability to choose it. Drugs and smoking are harmful activities that people choose whether or not to do and even those addicted to it can quit with some help. Homosexuality also does not destroy anyone's life and if they practice safe sex, then it is no more unhealthy or risky than heterosexual sex. The comparison doesn't even relate.

Also, your study on homosexual parents is kinda inconsequential. For one thing, just because people decide to allow them to live their own lives and marry if they choose, it doesn't mean that they can't treat adoption as a separate subject. But, even if they were allowed to adopt and I decide to accept the study you cite (especially considering the obvious bias of the source), it still doesn't matter because children raised by homosexual parents will still be far better off than if they instead lived in foster care or were raised by a single parent. The fact of the matter is that there are lots and lots of children that simply are not being adopted by married couples. There is absolutely no shortage of children waiting to be adopted. Besides, if someone's issue really is that they are concerned for the welfare of children adopted by homosexuals, then those people should be working just as hard to stop single parents from adopting, but I think we both know that children's welfare is not really their concern.
Posted by Quatermass 3 years ago
Quatermass
The Contender said, "Gay Parents will raise Gay children."

In much the same manner than religious parents will raise religious children. A far more harmful act to the child than raising them with homosexual values.
Posted by MoralityProfessor 3 years ago
MoralityProfessor
Neptune1bond:

While I too am unsure to what extent people of homosexual orientation have a choice in the matter, your argument about acceptance is completely illogical. By that standard, we should become accepting of drugs and smoking, because otherwise we might provoke teenagers into testing it out as those are also 'taboo.'

In addition, you mention that the claim that homosexuality is hurting society is completely unfounded, however a recent study done shows otherwise. To quote from the study, 'Just published in the journal Social Science Research,[1] the most careful, rigorous, and methodologically sound study ever conducted on this issue found numerous and significant differences between these groups--with the outcomes for children of homosexuals rated "suboptimal" (Regnerus' word) in almost every category.'

Here's the link for those interested.
http://www.frc.org...
Posted by JimmyRusltler 3 years ago
JimmyRusltler
Wow, con only had the bible to back him up. I wonder where his debate would be without it?
Posted by neptune1bond 3 years ago
neptune1bond
Even though con couldn't have possibly been serious, I still just wanted to say that any arguments against same-sex marriages are ridiculous. It is no one's business what consenting fully grown adult people do with one another in their own homes or how they define their relationship. Their arguments that homosexuality is somehow hurting society at large are completely unfounded, not to mention pointless since homosexuals will not stop being homosexual just because you don't let them get married. If you really want to stop people from "becoming homosexuals" (lol, what a ridiculous concept), then the better course of action would be acceptance. The reason that subversive children choose certain behaviors is because it is taboo. If it wasn't rebellious to choose it, then they wouldn't bother. If homosexuality is accepted and becomes something rather mundane and ordinary, then it loses it's *excitement*. So, even if I wanted to accept the argument of people "becoming homosexuals", the fact is, anti-gay people are causing it to be far worse then if they just minded their own d*mn business!
Posted by Aless1994 3 years ago
Aless1994
"Gay parents will raise gay children" after saying that you should of stopped typing and gave up. Find evidence and do some real research then come back.
Posted by crafter 3 years ago
crafter
This kind of topic needs more serious and committed debaters.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by MoralityProfessor 3 years ago
MoralityProfessor
AnaBellaTheNerdDanieljoshTied
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:13 
Reasons for voting decision: Con lost the conduct point for plagiarism. Pro did not have any logical arguments, as she used emotional pleas, compared fundamentally unrelated things (like sexuality and race), and throws in many red herrings. Con didn't necessarily have the best arguments either, but he did mention effects of a child being raised without a father, which is a good point. No sources were used and the S&G was tied.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
AnaBellaTheNerdDanieljoshTied
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: Conduct to Pro due to Con's plagiarism. Arguments to Pro since Con didn't back up his assertions at all.
Vote Placed by bsh1 3 years ago
bsh1
AnaBellaTheNerdDanieljoshTied
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: I found Con's view abhorrently closed-minded and fallacious. Gay parents can raise straight children, just as much as straight parents can raise gay children. How do you think we get gay people--from heterosexual sex. Irrespective of your prejudiced positions, you severely needed warrants to back up your outrageous assertions. Thus, I go Pro.
Vote Placed by HenryGBR 3 years ago
HenryGBR
AnaBellaTheNerdDanieljoshTied
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:61 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments, although more structures, were based on no proof, they were highly offensive and completely inaccurate. Even his saying 'infertile couples can't marry' was a total f*ck up. Really, his arguments were absolutely ridiculous. On the other hand, Pro made arguments that made sense, that were backed up by scientific fact and were not pejorative in any way, shape or form.
Vote Placed by Beverlee 3 years ago
Beverlee
AnaBellaTheNerdDanieljoshTied
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: Arguments to Pro - Con posted opinions, but not many supporting arguments to justify those opinions, until the last round when they couldn't be debated. Too much of the debate relied on religious laws, which don't convince non-bible believing people like myself. Conduct to Pro as well for the unsourced round that was copied, and for several insulting comments by Con. Some sources would have been cool.
Vote Placed by Hirakula 3 years ago
Hirakula
AnaBellaTheNerdDanieljoshTied
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: Anybody who read even one of Con's arguments could not vote in his favor, no matter what one's stance on the issue was. Good conduct was essentially nonexistent, no real arguments, and failed to cite his source when he actually made his entire argument from it, which horrifies me deeply. I'm not sure if Con was even serious in the debate, or just trolling.
Vote Placed by wiploc 3 years ago
wiploc
AnaBellaTheNerdDanieljoshTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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: Full Forfeit for plagiarism.
Vote Placed by Weiler 3 years ago
Weiler
AnaBellaTheNerdDanieljoshTied
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: This debate sucked.