The Instigator
mcallister.aya
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Jesusman
Con (against)
Winning
5 Points

Gay Rights

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 2 votes the winner is...
Jesusman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/14/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 609 times Debate No: 68360
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)

 

mcallister.aya

Pro

I think it is perfectly fine for two people of the same gender to be married. There is nothing wrong with that.
Jesusman

Con

Although I accept it is their right to do so, but there are a lot of things that are wrong with same sex marriage.
1. It is very unnatural.
2. It is biologically destructive
3. It is biblically unacceptable.
4. It opens the door for zoophilia and pedophilia.
Debate Round No. 1
mcallister.aya

Pro

I mean yes, it's not usual. I know I think three gay people so I know it's not that common. But do you know what is common in every single relationship? Love. That's what a relationship is, love. Two people who unconditionally love each other no matter what and it's sad that people who don't want gays to have rights can't look past the sex of two people and see that they just want to be together like any other couple in love.
Jesusman

Con

I agree with my opponent that the gays have rights. I am not against them having rights. In so far as the law protects them, they should be given their rights. I am merely saying that it is legally right, but it is morally wrong. That is not only based on sex.

1. Anatomically, it is not every orifice of the human body that was made for sexual purposes. The anus was made only for defecating and perhaps taking in suppositories.
2. Logically, simply because two people love themselves does not make it right. Would it be right for a mom to be sleeping with her son or a 40 year old to marry a 12 year old because they love themselves? Simply because it is legal does not make it moral. In some countries, incest is legal, but it does not make it moral. Homosexuality has not been from creation. Consequently, it is a learned behavior. The argument that what two people decide to do in their bedrooms is none of the society"s business is untenable. Why then was Armin Meiwes convicted for killing and eating Juergen Brandes when both of them signed a pact that stated that the former should kill and eat the latter?
3.Privacy. My opponent invokes the issue of private taste. Equity may rule against him. Another argument that what someone decides to do with his love life is no one"s business. That is indefensible because in July of 2013, in Surprise, Arizona, the police fatally shot 52-year-old Joel Byne who was trying to kill himself. He was trying to kill himself which was no one"s business, yet they killed him because it was as if he was trying to kill someone else. The life is not his; he did not make himself. He was made by God. The cock that crows may belong to a household, but it crows belong to the community.
4. Biblically, the Bible is against homosexuality in many passages. I will ask my opponent to supply biblically that are explicitly for homosexuality . Furthermore, during the salvific diluvian incident, God asked Noah and his sons to come in male and female and to take in animals, male and female (Gen 7:1-4). Again, the Law of Excluded Middle will mean that by requesting for heterosexual couples, He was prohibiting homosexual ones. It was an endorsement of heterosexuality above homosexuality. "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" (Lev 18:22). This is an injunction against Homosexuality and Lesbianism. Lot called it wickedness (Gen 19:4-8) and God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah for it. God calls it abomination rewarded with death (Lev 20:13). The Bible calls them sons of Belial (Judges 19: 22 but read the entire story: very interesting). The Apostle Paul says they are in error by practicing homosexuality and lesbianism (Rom 1:26-27). Paul tells Timothy that homosexuality and lesbianism are against sound doctrine (I Tim 1:10).
The Bible says: "And, the Lord saw that it was good." At the time that God made this statement man has not yet fallen into sin. Looking into the author"s assertion that God was not against homosexuality per se in Romans (Rom 1:26-27) but against pedophilia tells us he has made up his mind to go astray.
Debate Round No. 2
mcallister.aya

Pro

A large portion of my opponents argument was about the bible. What about those who aren't Christian or don't even believe in God? Do I believe in God? Yes I do but I don't necessarily believe the bible. A bible is literally a book written a very long time ago. Things have changed a lot since then. Today our society is advancing in many ways. America isn't the same as it was many years ago so why are people still following exactly what the bible says if it was written so long ago? For example, many people say that the bible condones slavery. ( which in my opinion is completely untrue) But today, slavery in america is illegal. So if the bible says that Gays are morally wrong, who says that that that can't be changed like slavery was?
Jesusman

Con

My opponent has not treated point 1, 2 and 3 of my discourse, yet he claims that the large portion of my expose is on the bible. The bible neither condones nor condemns slavery; however, it makes it difficult to be practiced by setting up many roadblocks. Whereas, the bible is very clear with homosexuality. The homosexual to me is the same like someone who is perpetually living in sin. He or she will not be different from the person who is married but has a sancha or sancho. If he or she dies, his blood will be in his hands, and God will forget his righteousness. Nonetheless, they are not our enemies. They are our neighbors, and we must love our neighbors as we love ourselves. .
Debate Round No. 3
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Monkey62 1 year ago
Monkey62
Please instead of only reading these verses, try to understand them. The verse from Mathew is protecting the children, its saying if you ruin their minds and hurt those innocents, then expect to go through and exrienpence worse than a millstone being hang around their neck and then drowned in the sea. That experience is hell. Because that do wrong on this earth are punished later on, and those being good are satisfied in heaven. So please understand not just read.
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
missmedic
We all know child abuse and especially child sexual abuse is pure evil but why isn't that made clear and obvious in the bible?
Proverbs 23:14 - Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.
Matthew 18:6-7 - But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and [that] he were drowned in the depth of the sea.
Mark 7:10 - For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death:
2 Kings Chapter 2:23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
You need to read more and not cherry pick.
Posted by Monkey62 1 year ago
Monkey62
I am sorry but I have read each page of the bible! Nothing in the bible is for child abuse, slavery, genocide and all those problems occuring in the world, if so its against it! Maybe sometimes they used kill in the old testement but in the new its all about love and forgiveness and peace. So please make sure you have read it carefully.
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
missmedic
I have read the bible cover to cover and I do read the bible, lets have a look ;
Deuteronomy 28:53.....Deuteronomy 28:57....Exodus 21:5-6....Exodus 21:5-6.... Psalms 137:9....Exodus 22:29....Proverbs 13:24.....leviticus30;9...Leviticus 26:27-30....Matthew 10:35-27. ...1 Samuel 15:3) ,to name a few. Maybe you should read the bible, I find most Christian do not.
Posted by Monkey62 1 year ago
Monkey62
to missmedic, you said "The bible opens the door to slavery, genocide and child abuse" don't state something that you are not sure of! Have u read the bible? do you even know it? If no then u have no right to state" things" the from bible that are not even there! The bible talks about love and forgivness ! Be sure of ur answer before u state it please :)
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
missmedic
What's unnatural is homophobia. Homo sapiens is the only species in all of nature that responds with hate to homosexuality. Using the bible to justify your ignorance and hatred is immoral. The bible opens the door to slavery, genocide and child abuse.
http://www.scientificamerican.com...
Posted by mrpilotgamer 1 year ago
mrpilotgamer
I may not be debating, but here are all of the fallacies you used.

1: appeal to nature fallacy.

2: slippery slope fallacy

please avoid using fallacies, including the fallacy fallacy.
Posted by TheAnonymousTipster 1 year ago
TheAnonymousTipster
I'm guessing, Esiar, you're Christian, or even Muslim?
Posted by Esiar 1 year ago
Esiar
I think it is immoral, but that you can't force them to not get legally married.
Posted by TheAnonymousTipster 1 year ago
TheAnonymousTipster
*Hatred, rather than discrimination. I guess it IS discrimination in a loose sense of the term, haha...
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Philocat 1 year ago
Philocat
mcallister.ayaJesusmanTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: S&G and conduct are tied; both debaters behaved well and used satisfactory grammar. Arguments point goes to Con, as Pro dropped his arguments concerning anatomical purpose, slippery slope and privacy. Pro only responded to Con's biblical arguments. Con also gets sources point, as despite bible references having questionable veracity, disputed sources are better than no sources.
Vote Placed by Zarroette 1 year ago
Zarroette
mcallister.ayaJesusmanTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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: Pro was right in saying that Con's arguments were largely from the Bible, and mind you, merely quoting the Bible is not a convincing argument. I think it is fair to say that the Bible line of argument was waved by Pro. HOWEVER, Con had other points that were dropped by Pro, BUT these were essentially concessions as Con prefaced them with "I am not against them having rights". This debate was not necessarily about whether it is moral. It was about whether gays should have rights, which Con explicitly conceded. So, I have to give arguments to Pro.