The Instigator
libertarian
Pro (for)
Losing
26 Points
The Contender
SnoopyDaniels
Con (against)
Winning
58 Points

Gay marriages should be federally legalized in the United States.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/27/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,514 times Debate No: 4233
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (28)
Votes (20)

 

libertarian

Pro

I. I am gay. I was made a certain way and never had a choice.
It was important for me to use many sources and ALL ARE SCIENTIFICALLY BASED. I know how easy it is to find a non-scientific biased site, but all of my sources are scientific.

II. Homosexuality is natural. It is not a choice. Nobody would choose homosexuality if it was a choice. Homosexuality is a natural occurence in
animals and in environments without contact from other societies.

[http:// www. msnbc. msn. com/ id/15750604/]

[http:// www. pureintimacy. org/ gr/ homosexuality/a0000058. cfm]

[http:// www. apa. org/ topics/sorientation. html]

[Alfred C. Kinsey, Wardell B. Pomeroy and Clyde E. Martin, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company, 1948), p.651.]

[Ruth Tiffany Barnhouse, Homosexuality: a Symbolic Confusion, (New York: The Seabury Press, 1979) p.l57.]

[Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality, American Psychological Association, online at http://helping.apa.org.......]

[D'Augelli, A. R., Grossman, A. H., & Starks, M. T., "Childhood Gender Atypicality, Victimization, and PTSD Among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Youth," Journal of Interpersonal Violence]

[Myers, D. G., Excerpt from Psychology, 8th edition. (New York: Worth Publishers, 2007), http://www.davidmyers.org.......]

[Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality, American Psychological Association, online at http://helping.apa.org.......]

[Myers, D. G., Excerpt from Psychology, 8th edition. (New York: Worth Publishers, 2007), http://www.davidmyers.org.......]

[Roselli C.E., Larkin K., Schrunk J.M., Stormshak F., "Sexual partner preference, hypothalamic morphology and aromatase in rams," Physiology and Behavior, 2004, Nov 15;83(2):233-45.]

III. Homosexuals are capable parents who are loving and are just as capable as heterosexual parents. Therefore, gay parents should be allowed to adopt.

[http:// www. apa. org/ pi/ parent. html]

[American Academy of Pediatrics, "Co-parent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents," Pediatrics 109 (Feb. 2002): 341.]

[Brodzinsky, David, "Adoptions by Gays and Lesbians: A National Survey of Adoption Agency Policies, Practices, and Attitudes," Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, October 29, 2003.]

[Stacey, J. & Biblarz, T. "Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?" American Sociological Review, Vol. 66, No. 2, April 2001.]

[Dingfelder, S. "The kids are all right,", The Monitor on Psychology, A Publication of The American Psychological Association, December, 2005, Vol. 36, No. 11.]

[American Academy of Pediatrics Conference and Exhibition, Washington, D.C., Oct. 8-11, 2005. Ellen C. Perrin, MD, professor of pediatrics, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston. Carol Berkowitz, MD, former president, American Academy of Pediatrics.]

[Excerpt from statement released by the American Academy of Pediatrics, February 2002.]

[American Psychiatric Association, "Adoption and Co-parenting of Children by Same-sex Couples." Approved by the Board of Trustees and by the Assembly, November 2002.]

[American Psychological Association, Guidelines for Psychotherapy with Lesbian, Gay, And Bisexual Clients, www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/guidelines.html.]

[American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Policy Statement, Facts for Families: Children with Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Parents, June 1999, NO. 92, updated August, 2006.]

[http://www.aacap.org...... exual_and_transgender_parents.]

[American Anthropological Association, Statement on Marriage and the Family, February 25, 2004.]

[Dr. John Gottman in discussion with the author at the training: A Research-based Approach To Marital Therapy, Dallas, Texas, September 2001.]

IV. It is discriminatory and not any humans' right to judge which love is correct or wrong.

(Matthew 7:1) "Do not judge so that you will not be judged.

Luke 6:37 "Do not judge, and you will not be judged; and do not condemn, and you will not be condemned; pardon, and you will be pardoned.

Luke 6:41 "Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?

Romans 14:10 But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.

Romans 14:13 Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this-- not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way.

Isa 66:5 Eze 16:52-56 Lu 6:37 Ro 2:1,2 14:3,4,10-13 1Co 4:3-5 Jas 3:1 4:11,12

I want everyone to understand that it does hurt to see prejudice homophobes distorting the Bible and scientific fact to hurt us.
SnoopyDaniels

Con

I am somewhat confused, as the title of the debate is significantly different than the substance of your opening statement. However, since the issue of gay marriage does hinge somewhat upon the issues you raised in your opening argument, I think it makes an appropriate beginning. For the sake of clarity, though, the topic isn't whether or not gay marriages should be legalized, but whether or not homosexuality is morally acceptable. Legality is a secondary issue. Please tell me if I'm mistaken.

I would like to begin by saying that I am an angry and violent person. I was born that way, it wasn't a choice. Therefore, it's okay. Don't you dare judge me for it, it's just natural.

The above paragraph is an illustration of the fact that something cannot be justified as acceptable simply by virtue of being "natural." In addition to "homosexuality," the animal kingdom displays a number of other behaviors, including polygamy, homicide, patricide, fratricide, incest, and rape. By your reasoning, all of the above should be considered acceptable because they are "natural." This is, of course, absurd.

Since you have quoted scripture in order to condemn those who would dare to say that homosexuality is wrong, and since you express outrage that some people would "distort" scripture to do so, I assume that you have some respect for the Bible as a moral compass. This is an excellent starting point, as neither "nature" nor pure reason serve as a legitimate basis for a moral standard.

First, I am not judging anyone. I have no idea what kind of person you are, or of the contents of your heart are. I do, however, know that homosexuality is immoral, based on the same Bible you quoted.

Leviticus 20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

Romans 1:24-47 "Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet."

In the first verse, we see explicitly that homosexuality is an abomination. In the second, we see much the same thing, except that this verse essentially calls homosexuality a mental illness, and points to venereal diseases as confirmation of the immorality of that lifestyle. It may also be a prophetic reference to the spread of AIDs. Whatever the case, the message is clear: homosexuality is wrong.

Notwithstanding, there are MANY other sins described in the Bible, and I would by lying if I told you that I was not guilty of many, if not most of them. The Bible says that he who is guilty of breaking one of the commandments is guilty of the whole (James 2:10.) In other words, we are all equally guilty. However, none of this serves as a justification for sin. We are told to repent (and be baptized) for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38.) The word repent means to turn away from a current path or direction. We see this principle when Jesus forgave the adulteress who was brought to her to be stoned, when he said "go and sin no more."

What is important to remember is that what we often see as "rules" and "commandments" in the Bible are really there for our benefit. While most people erroneously base their morality on whether or not a particular act causes other people harm, the morality of the Bible was given by God to ensure not only that we don't harm others, but that we don't harm ourselves, and that we live happy, fulfilled lives as a result. The point of these verses isn't to condemn people like yourself to hell, but to give you the opportunity to turn away from these behaviors to your own benefit. You may reply that you don't want to change, that you're happy just the way you are, to which I would reply that nobody WANTS to change. It is often a difficult and painful process. However, we must simply have faith that God knows what's best for us, and that if we surrender a fault or sinful behavior, God will replace it with a lasting peace and joy which no amount of worldly pleasure can rival.

Now that I've touched on the Biblical side of things, I will return to the scientific side. I thought I would point out that two of the sources for which you provided links actually weaken your case. The second link, states the exact opposite of what you're trying to prove, saying that homosexuality, contrary to the view presented by the gay and lesbian community, is not natural. The third link states that "There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation." In other words, for every link you provided which says homosexuality is natural, I could, if I had the time, find one which challenges that hypothesis. There is no scientific consensus on the issue.

There are, however, at least one very sound scientific reason to believe that homosexuality is not natural, at least not entirely. This is the force of natural selection. Natural selection, as I'm sure we're all aware, is differential reproductive success (At least, that's the definition given in my biology text book from last quarter.) Obviously if an organism doesn't pass on its genetic information, that information will disappear from a population's gene pool. It should be equally obvious that while homosexuals can and often do reproduce (although I think the number that do is diminishing somewhat now that people aren't as afraid to "come out of the closet as it were) their differential reproductive success is heavily outweighed by heterosexuals. Thus, if a "gay gene" does or ever did exist, it would have or will disappear from the gene pool in very, very short order.

Some have proposed that a homosexual gene could survive in recessive form in heterozygous individuals. Unfortunately, this will still result in the elimination of the gay allele over time, as every instance of a homozygous dominant individual will be selected against, resulting in a drop of the total frequency of the allele until only one individual possesses the recessive trait.

Thus, not only does is the issue over whether homosexuality is natural or not irrelevant to the question of its morality, there are sound scientific reasons to believe that it cannot possibly be natural. It is more probably (although there is an ongoing debate in the scientific community) an abnormality, the result of environmental factors. This view of homosexuality as pathological is supported by the self-destructive nature of homosexual activity, which severely increases the risk of AIDS. If it is pathological, and the likelihood is high, then regardless of how loving homosexual parents may be, it cannot be considered responsible to allow homosexual couples to adopt. Forgive me, but if God had wanted homosexuals to have kids...

Finally we arrive at whether or not homosexual marriages should be legalized. Once again, if homosexuality is pathological, writing a law giving them the ability to marry one another would be a bit like writing a law allowing schizophrenics to marry each other.
Debate Round No. 1
libertarian

Pro

I. The Fourteenth Amendment (Equal Protection Clause)
I forgot to mention this aspect of the Constitution that shows that discrimination against marriage is illegal. In the interracial marriage case Loving vs. Virginia, the Supreme Court unanimously voted against discrimination in marriage based on the Equal Protection Clause.
"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
It is fair for you to have to rebut this argument, because it is so important and you have ample time to rebut it, two rounds.

II. Topicality
My opening statement was simply an introduction to my position and self as a debater. The topic, in debate, is always what is to be debated. That is one of the few rules of debate. I am sorry to confuse you, but legality is an issue as well as naturality.

III. Natural Behavior Justification
You used the argument that violence is justified for its naturality. However, violence hurts people. Love does not hurt anybody. This is a common sense argument.

IV. Leviticus 20:13
A. This scripture was not presented by God. Most knowledgable Bible scholars, even the most conservative, will conceed that these rules are not from God. They are rather presented from Israeli religious leaders. They do not have the right, as well as any other human what is right or wrong.

B. Leviticus 20:2 reads "speak to the children of Israel." Christians are NOT the "children of Israel". No Christians have an obligation to follow Jewish Levitical Laws. It is typical for religion to be used to justify hate. It has been done in slavery, suffrage and the holocaust.

C. Leviticus also bans round haircuts, tattoos, wearing garments of mixed fabrics, eating pork or shellfish, and even playing with the skin of a pig (football).

V. Romans 1:24 - 27
A. These priests and priestesses engaged in some odd sexual behaviors -- including castrating themselves and carrying on drunken sexual orgies. This is the sin the Bible is referring to. God is obviously not condemning the way he created a group of people.

B. These people refused to acknowledge and worship God, and for this reason were abandoned by God.

C. The scripture says that God gave them up for vile affections against nature, but how is it referring to homosexuality, which is proven to be from birth? And is natural? It is not referring to homosexuality. That is an incorrect assumption.

D. Romans 2 begins with the scripture "Therefore, [referring to Romans 1], you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself..." That is what Romans 1 is about: judging others, not homosexuality. How dare you twist a message from God for your own personal benefit to spread hate!

VI. You Being A Jerk
DO NOT try to convert me to your religion or your sexual preference! I know what I am and who I am. I am not sinning, as I have proven. However, you are for being judgmental. There are only 6 scriptures that can be twisted to condemn homosexuality. While a main message of your Bible is to not judge others! Practice what you preach, buddy.

VII. My sources
My related sources all stated that homosexuality is natural and at least partially biological.

VIII. Scientific Consensus
You have the nerve to only copy and paste the part of my source that states that there is no scientific consensus on the BIOLOGY of homosexuality. However, among respectable scientific sources that are not biased the consensus is that homosexuality is in part genetic or set in very early in life. It is unfair and dishonest that you only copy and paste one part of the source just like you did with the Bible.

IX. Natural selection
A. Ok...

B. It is possible that there is a recessive homosexual trait in humans that is being overshadowed by the dominant trait but still being passed down in some cases only not expressed.

C. Homosexuals often reproduce through modern scientific methods like serrogacy and invetro.

D. And, many homosexuals, in order to hide their sexuality, do indeed reproduce.

X. Natural selection proves homosexuality to be immoral
This argument makes no sense! Many genese will be naturally selected.

XI. "This view of homosexuality as pathological is supported by the self-destructive nature of homosexual activity, which severely increases the risk of AIDS."
This also makes no sense! AIDS is a disease. There is no scientific support or debate that it is a disease.

XII. Gays should not adopt, because God does not want them to have kids.
A. DO YOU KNOW GOD'S PLAN!? LET GOD SPEAK FOR HISSELF! STOP LYING IN HIS NAME! IT'S DISPICABLE!

B. God perhaps made it so difficult for gays to have kids because of the many kids in need of adoption.

XIII. Gay marriage is like psychos marrying.
This is an incredibly ignorant statement and no source will claim that homosexuality is pathological.

My opponent has lied in the name of science, God and twisted my sources. He is dishonest and only cares about his hateful message. I do not understand why e enjoys prejudice so much that he will lie to keep it up, but I have successfully thwarted every single point of his and have advantages of legality, freedom and the well being of many orphans. Discrimination is a policy that the United States should finally abandon.
SnoopyDaniels

Con

Please explain how the fourteenth amendment protects homosexual behavior. No homosexual's rights are being infringed. They have the right to get married (to someone of the opposite sex) and have kids just like anyone else. Heterosexual men don't have the right to marry each other any more than homosexual men.

"You used the argument that violence is justified for its naturality. However, violence hurts people. Love does not hurt anybody. This is a common sense argument."

Clearly you did not read my argument thoroughly. I did not say that violence is justified because it is natural. I said that you cannot defend homosexual behavior by calling it natural. Quite a significant difference. Since you didn't really respond to my argument, I will repeat it.

"I would like to begin by saying that I am an angry and violent person. I was born that way, it wasn't a choice. Therefore, it's okay. Don't you dare judge me for it, it's just natural.

The above paragraph is an illustration of the fact that something cannot be justified as acceptable simply by virtue of being "natural." In addition to "homosexuality," the animal kingdom displays a number of other behaviors, including polygamy, homicide, patricide, fratricide, incest, and rape. By your reasoning, all of the above should be considered acceptable because they are "natural." This is, of course, absurd."

Who are you or anyone else to say what parts of the Bible were or were not inspired by God? If this verse was not inspired by God then how do we know that any of the Bible was inspired by God? It is in the Bible, therefore it was inspired by God. Clearly we are not the children of Israel, but this is a poor argument since the same attitude is exemplified in the New Testament, which is expressly meant for us.

"These priests and priestesses engaged in some odd sexual behaviors -- including castrating themselves and carrying on drunken sexual orgies."

Nowhere does it refer to any priest or priestesses, or "odd sexual behaviors." Even if it was referring to odd sexual behaviors, homosexuality IS an odd sexual behavior.

"This is the sin the Bible is referring to."

No, the Bible is referring to "men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." That is clearly referring to homosexuality. I don't think I need to explain this any further, as this verse speaks for itself.

"These people refused to acknowledge and worship God, and for this reason were abandoned by God."

And were given up to vile affections, and became homosexuals.

"how is it referring to homosexuality, which is proven to be from birth?"

Once again, you obviously not read my argument. Nor did you read two of YOUR OWN sources, which say otherwise.

"It is not referring to homosexuality."

Then what do you call it when men burn in their lusts one toward another and work that which is unseemly?

"That is what Romans 1 is about: judging others, not homosexuality."

Where does it talk about judging. Obviously you're a little confused about what "judging" means. If I say, "you're a bad person and you're going to hell!" then I would be judging. If I say "homosexuality is wrong because the Bible says so," I'm only saying what God said. If it applies to you then it behooves you to repent.

Your comments about me being a jerk are clearly the symptoms of blind fury and accompanying irrationality at being unable to support your point. I don't think that point is worth my time discussing. Suffice it to say that I'm not trying to convert you to my religion, I'm trying to convert you to YOUR religion.

"My related sources all stated that homosexuality is natural and at least partially biological."

Really? Allow me to quote from your second source: "homosexuality is a condition that, in a fundamental way, is contrary to nature. Biologically, it is simply not natural or normal." The third source (which I quoted in my initial argument) explicitly states that there is no scientific consensus about what causes homosexuality. Your above statement is simply false.

"You have the nerve to only copy and paste the part of my source that states that there is no scientific consensus on the BIOLOGY of homosexuality."

So you're mad because I quoted your source?

"However, among respectable scientific sources that are not biased the consensus is that homosexuality is in part genetic or set in very early in life."

Upon what are you basing the assessment that the only respectable scientific sources are those that agree with your position?

"A. OK..."

That is not a point. This is me being a jerk.

As to your second point about natural selection, once again you have demonstrated that you did not even read my argument. Why are you debating me if you're not going to read anything I write? If you just want to shove your gay agenda down my throat, there are some lovely parades in Los Angeles this time of year. Since you did not answer my argument, I will simply repeat it.

"Some have proposed that a homosexual gene could survive in recessive form in heterozygous individuals. Unfortunately, this will still result in the elimination of the gay allele over time, as every instance of a homozygous dominant individual will be selected against, resulting in a drop of the total frequency of the allele until only one individual possesses the recessive trait."

"Homosexuals often reproduce through modern scientific methods like serrogacy and invetro."

How, exactly, does the fact that it requires a laboratory, along with a male and female reproductive cell, support the conclusion that homosexuality is natural?

"Natural selection proves homosexuality to be immoral
This argument makes no sense! Many genese will be naturally selected."

When did I ever say natural selection proves that homosexuality is immoral? Once again, why are you arguing with me if you're not going to respond to any my points, AND make up your own straw man arguments to refute? I said that natural selection makes it impossible that homosexuality could be genetic (natural,) contrary to your central premise.

"This also makes no sense! AIDS is a disease. There is no scientific support or debate that it is a disease."

Exactly. And it is a direct consequence of homosexual behavior. Not that it can't be contracted in other ways, but there is a significantly higher risk factor involved in homosexual behavior as opposed to heterosexual behavior. The risk is virtually eliminated when your partner isn't someone you just met at a public restroom. If homosexuality is natural, why is it directly responsible for one of most deadly diseases know to man? When a man and a woman do the dead, it produces life, when a man and a man engage in sodomy, it often results in death. For most people, that's all the argument that is needed.

"DO YOU KNOW GOD'S PLAN!?"

No, but if he wanted gay people to have kids, he would have made it so they can reproduce just like any heterosexual couple. If you don't come up with some better arguments, I'm not going to have anything to say in the third round.

"God perhaps made it so difficult for gays to have kids because of the many kids in need of adoption."

He didn't make it DIFFICULT for gays to have kids, he made it IMPOSSIBLE. Whatever you may have been told, no matter how hard you try, neither you nor your boyfriend will EVER get pregnant.

"no source will claim that homosexuality is pathological."

I know of at least one source which makes exactly that claim. Its http://www.pureintimacy.org... which happens to be one of the sources you provided.
Debate Round No. 2
libertarian

Pro

I. Equal Protection Clause
In the Supreme Court Case, Loving vs. Virginia, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that two people could marry each other even if they were different races. It overturned interracial marriage bans. This proves that you cannot stop two individuals from marrying based on one aspect of each of them. Gays have the right to marry each other, just like two races can marry each other.

II. Violence is natural...so is homosexuality

You obviously did not read my arguments well enough because I did not defend gays by saying that it is natural. I'm simply stating that there is no choice in the matter and it does not hurt anybody. Therefore, why would the government try to stop it?

III. "Who are you or anyone else to say what parts of the Bible were or were not inspired by God?"

A. This is a very flawed statement. Leviticus 20:2 starts off by saying "And say unto the children of Israel..." Not to the children of God or people of the world. The passage in Leviticus only involves Israeli priests.

B. Leviticus also bans clothes of mixed fabrics and round haircuts. It is not for all of us. Just for these priests.
"These priests and priestesses engaged in some odd sexual behaviors -- including castrating themselves and carrying on drunken sexual orgies."

IV. A. Romans 1:24-27 specifically states they were thrown off of their initial attractions for new, vile ones. This means they were once different sexually. Gays are born, not created later. This is proven in my naturality arguments.

B. Romans 2 begins with the "Therefore, [referring to Romans 1], you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself..." The government and Congressmen have no right to judge. This is the Bible's message with Romans. How dare you twist the words!

V. It says they had unseemly affections including castrating themselves and sex orgies, not the God-given gift of homosexuality.

VI. The first statement in Romans 2 is "Therefore, [referring to Romans 1], you have no excuse, whoever you are, when you judge others; for in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself..." Nobody has the right to judge, even if the Bible agrees with your judgment, which in this case, it does not.

VII. A. Maybe one of my sources was differing, but after re-reading it, I realize it is a biased source (pureintimacy.com). I tried to use unbiased sources, but I guess I slipped on one.

B. AND YOU LIED ABOUT MY OTHER SOURCE!!! It says "There is no consensus among scientists about the EXACT reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation." This is true. However, the same sight says that nature plays a complex role in it.

C. I'm upset that you would lie about the source and only include the first part of the statement "There is no scientific consensus on the exact reasons..." when after that it says that nature plays a complex role along with nurture.

VIII. I only recognize sources that are scientific. My sources are not biased. They are scientific, mostly psychological.

IX. Maybe the gay gene will die out overtime. Scientists say that we will all be mixed and all the races will die out overtime as well. So what!?!?

X. Serrogacy proves that the gene will likely not die out. ...you're obviously not reading my argument...

XI. There are mutations, recessive genes, closet homosexuals who reproduce. All of these will create a gay gene.

XII. Sodomy is no more likely to kill you than vaginal sex. This argument is just dumb. I'm getting really annoyed.

XIII. Maybe God wanted gays to adopt. Perhaps this is his plan.

XIV. Serrogacy makes kids. Not sodomy. I understand that Snoopy.

XV. My source was a mistake. I'll admit. I didn't look it over well enough. Ok.

XVI. GAY MARRIAGE IS PROTECTED UNDER THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE!

XVII. SCIENTISTS BELIEVE IT IS MOST LIKELY BIOLOGICAL AND NO CONTRARY EVIDENCE PROVES OTHERWISE!

XVIII. NOBODY HAS THE RIGHT TO JUDGE ANOTHER PERSON ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE.
SnoopyDaniels

Con

"In the Supreme Court Case, Loving vs. Virginia, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that two people could marry each other even if they were different races."

This case sets a precedent which allows people of different races to marry one another. Homosexuality is not a race, therefore this court case does not apply. If this case, as you say, "proves that you cannot stop two individuals from marrying based on one aspect of each of them" then I could marry a three-year-old. Obviously you have misinterpreted this case.

"You obviously did not read my arguments well enough because I did not defend gays by saying that it is natural."

That's exactly what you did. Allow me to quote your second point from your initial argument: "II. Homosexuality is natural."

"This is a very flawed statement. Leviticus 20:2 starts off by saying "And say unto the children of Israel..." Not to the children of God or people of the world. The passage in Leviticus only involves Israeli priests."

If that is the case, then the Ten Commandments don't apply to us either. Let's go kill people. There are certainly ceremonial laws in the Old Testament that were specifically intended for the Jews. However, this is clearly not one of those cases, since the New Testament also includes a condemnation of homosexuality.

"The government and Congressmen have no right to judge."

Well, then, if the government doesn't have a right to judge, then who are they to say that child molestation is wrong? How dare they! Your argument is totally irrational, based on a misunderstanding of what "judging" means. If the Bible says something is wrong, it's wrong. Just because you resemble that passage doesn't mean I'm judging you.

"It says they had unseemly affections including castrating themselves and sex orgies, not the God-given gift of homosexuality."

No it doesn't. It says "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet." Just a tip. Distorting the obvious meaning of a scripture just makes you look terribly silly.

You keep harping on this judging business. By your own definition of "judging" anyone who says that murder is wrong is judging. If you walked up and killed someone and I told you "killing is wrong!" would you stand there telling me I'm being judgmental? You really need to do a study on the word "judge," "judging," and "judgment." Fortunately I don't have to convince you, I just have to convince those reading this debate. Otherwise we'd be here a while.

"Maybe one of my sources was differing, but after re-reading it, I realize it is a biased source (pureintimacy.com). I tried to use unbiased sources, but I guess I slipped on one."

libertarian, I have to thank you for providing some of the best entertainment I've had in a long time. What you're saying here is that anything and anyone that doesn't validate your lifestyle is unreliable. Do you even realize how ridiculous you sound? I ask again, upon what are you basing the assessment that the only respectable scientific sources are those that agree with your position?

"AND YOU LIED ABOUT MY OTHER SOURCE!!! It says "There is no consensus among scientists about the EXACT reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation." This is true. However, the same sight says that nature plays a complex role in it.""

I should know, since I'm the one who quoted it first. How could I lie about your source when I quoted it verbatim? Furthermore, nowhere does it say that nature plays a complex role. It says "Many THANK that NATURE AND NURTURE both play complex roles." By the way, why did you cite a source that you never even read until I quoted it? Did you just pull this list off of some gay propaganda website without reviewing it yourself?

"I'm upset that you would lie about the source and only include the first part of the statement "There is no scientific consensus on the exact reasons..." when after that it says that nature plays a complex role along with nurture."

I'm upset that you're upset that I quoted your own source. I'm also upset that you're upset that I'm upset that you MISQUOTED your own source.

"I only recognize sources that are scientific. My sources are not biased. They are scientific, mostly psychological."

Upon what do you base the claim that your sources are not biased. I have yet to meet an intelligent person that doesn't have opinions, and I challenge you or anyone else to show me the man who is completely unbiased. Everyone has preconceptions, and nobody can prevent those preconceptions from coloring their research. That doesn't mean that their research should simply be discarded, only that we should think critically about it, and not accept it as fact simply because "well, he's a scientist!!" That's the fastest way to short circuit the search for scientific truth.

"Maybe the gay gene will die out overtime. Scientists say that we will all be mixed and all the races will die out overtime as well. So what!?!?"

What do you mean so what? Even if a gay gene ever existed (and if it did exist, it must have existed for some time now since people throughout history have exhibited homosexual behavior, and they have always been heathen cultures) it couldn't possibly survive more than a few generations. Therefore, homosexuality couldn't possibly be genetic, and therefore couldn't possibly be "natural" in that sense.

"Serrogacy proves that the gene will likely not die out. ...you're obviously not reading my argument..."

Once again, if a homosexual gene ever did exist, it would have disappeared long before the advent of artificial methods of reproduction. Therefore, this argument is irrelevant. However a theoretical homosexual gene managed to survive for a period of time, differential reproductive success WOULD eventually lead to the disappearance of this gene. Either enough homosexual individuals would choose not to reproduce that the allele would eventually die off, or a sampling error would cause the few remaining alleles do disappear. Remember, too, that the argument over whether or not homosexuality is natural has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not it is right or wrong. I just happen to believe that it's neither moral nor natural.

"There are mutations, recessive genes, closet homosexuals who reproduce. All of these will create a gay gene."

Correction, recessive genes and closet homosexuals will delay the eventual demise of a gay gene. Mutations only provide the original genetic information (and even that is theoretical, not an observed fact.) The closet homosexual argument only works with regard to humans. Since you claim that the homosexual gene is present in animals, who are supposedly older divergences from our phyletic line, and since animals don't have the sense to realize that unless they find a female and mate they won't have children, the homosexual gene would have disappeared long before humans arrive on earth. All of that assumes that you believe in evolution, which I don't.

"Sodomy is no more likely to kill you than vaginal sex. This argument is just dumb. I'm getting really annoyed."

Yeah, I would be annoyed too in your position. I'm surprise I even have to provide you with statistics to convince you that, excuse me, a rectum is a less healthy environment then *ahem* a vagina. Nevertheless, here's a link to HIV/AID section of the CDC website.

http://www.cdc.gov...

"Maybe God wanted gays to adopt. Perhaps this is his plan."

I'm guessing that God doesn't want children to be raised by the kind of people described in Romans 1. Just a guess.

I have already refuted the rest of your points. This concludes the debate.
Debate Round No. 3
28 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by magpie 5 years ago
magpie
Instigator: Your arguments are exceedingly egocentric. The Fourteenth Amendment - if taken from your point of view - would necessarily require the examination and exposure of every variation and nuance of human existence. No laws with any reference to age, gender, personal preference, etc. would be permitted. For example: If Kentucky decided that it would be wonderful to accommodate NAMBLA and Billy Bob, aged 55, married Joe Bob, aged 12, South Dakota would be required to respect the marriage. No state allows marriage of a 12 year old - gay or straight - but that denies a 'right of equal protection' to Billy Bob (from his perspective). Prop 8, describes marriage as "between a man and a woman" there is no reference to sexual preference. The woman may, in fact, prefer other women and the man may prefer animals. The law is unconcerned with your/my desires.
Posted by lovelessserenity 5 years ago
lovelessserenity
Snoopy was the better debater... Lib just had way to many wholes in his argument...
Sorry Lib, while i agree with your opinion, Snoop wins the debate...

Now for Snoop... Just how is it that homosexuality is morally wrong, unnatural, and unhealthy....
Here are a couple links that show sources of info and debates that i feel you must combat against, before making a low comment like that... You don't have to read them, and i am not trying to start a debate with you, i just think you should look at these sites before you think that your comment is 100% correct... Of course for all i know you could be playing devil's advocate, but i did look at your page and you say your a christian (and i don't mean to stereotype) so i am assuming that you are not...

http://www.apa.org...
http://www.lionking.org...
http://www.libchrist.com...
http://www.debate.org...
Posted by SnoopyDaniels 5 years ago
SnoopyDaniels
Forgive me. I understand the difficulties of not having enough space.

"furthermore anal intercourse between a married heterosexual couple is not prohibited ANYWHERE in the Bible."

Might I suggest that, until recently, it wasn't necessary to TELL anyone that anal sex is unhealthy...

"AIDS does come from promiscuity, but my argument was that the anal intercourse itself is not unhealthy"

As I said before, common sense and AIDS statistics say otherwise.

I look forward to the debate.
Posted by kgantchev 5 years ago
kgantchev
As I said in my last comment, I don't have enough time (nor space) to debate ALL of the items with you, so don't complain that I haven't addressed some of your points. I try to stick to the main issues.

"Clearly you've never been to the CDC's page on AIDS. Furthermore, the Bible also condemns sexual promiscuity. If that's what you mean by "normal sex" then I might be able to see where you're coming from."

I only argue that the actual act is about as unhealthy/healthy as vaginal intercourse ("normal sex"), furthermore anal intercourse between a married heterosexual couple is not prohibited ANYWHERE in the Bible.

AIDS does come from promiscuity, but my argument was that the anal intercourse itself is not unhealthy, I said nothing about promiscuity.

"Furthermore, the Bible (and other books which claim to be divinely inspired) are the ONLY possible source of moral guidance... Morals are unchanging, otherwise they aren't morals."
OK, this is definitely worth a debate now... I'll make a debate on this one, you should see an invitation soon. This is wrong on SO MANY levels that I can't even begin to tell you about it.
Posted by SnoopyDaniels 5 years ago
SnoopyDaniels
"Homosexuality is about as unhealthy as normal sex"

Clearly you've never been to the CDC's page on AIDS. Furthermore, the Bible also condemns sexual promiscuity. If that's what you mean by "normal sex" then I might be able to see where you're coming from.

"I do because I believe in personal freedom and secular governments"

So do I, but that doesn't require that we condone homosexuality and institute gay "marriage." By the way, what non-secular organizations am I endorsing? I'm endorsing a particular value system, not a religious establishment. Furthermore, how does NOT legalizing gay marriage violate the constitution?

My stance is true based on logical arguments and scientific evidence, which I noticed that you entirely forgot to include in your arguments, not JUST on the Bible. Furthermore, the Bible (and other books which claim to be divinely inspired) are the ONLY possible source of moral guidance. Morals, by definition, are standards of right and wrong that transcend the physical world and human reason. If something is "immoral" we say it's "wrong." In other words, it conflicts with a deep conviction. What do we base that on? Human reason? I hope not, because human reason is fickle. Morals are unchanging, otherwise they aren't morals. Human reason may lead us to correct judgments today, and something like utilitarianism tomorrow. Utilitarianism is "reasonable," unfortunately it's based on a twisted value system which devalues individual human life.

Thus, morals MUST be based on something which is not derived from the facts of the physical world, but given to us by a power which transcends that physical world. If there is no God, then there are no true morals.

"There are MANY countries that don't observe the theistic moral structure and they're doing JUST fine."

That depends on what you consider "fine." I could show you some fairly frightening statistics that might change your mind. Public education comes to mind.
Posted by kgantchev 5 years ago
kgantchev
"We can't prevent homosexuals from doing what they want to do. However, it is clearly an unhealthy, unnatural, AND immoral lifestyle and we CAN discourage it by not legally acknowledging it as normal and acceptable."

I only have enough time to respond to this one! LOL, OK, it made me chuckle... Homosexuality is about as unhealthy as normal sex, as far as it being "normal" it really depends on what we define as normal. If a man has anal intercourse with a woman that would not be unclean, unhealthy, unnatural and immoral, because the Bible never prohibits anal intercourse between a man and a woman.

"Frankly, I don't understand why someone who is not gay such as yourself would go to such lengths to defend homosexuality."

I do because I believe in personal freedom and secular governments, so I like to stand up for what I believe is right. If we start endorsing non-secular organizations and accepting their definitions of morality on eve ONE issue, then we'll give the wrong message:

A. Government endorsing a specific religion is OK.
B. Violating the constitution is OK.

Your stance is true ONLY if you believe in the Bible as a source of moral guidance, MANY other people don't (neither do I). There are MANY countries that don't observe the theistic moral structure and they're doing JUST fine, so the argument that if we don't use the Bible as a moral foundation will result in chaos is wrong.
Posted by SnoopyDaniels 5 years ago
SnoopyDaniels
Clearly you aren't understanding what I'm saying. Let me try again.

Yes, attraction appears to happen in the brain. But the structure of the male or female brain depends on the level and type of hormones introduced during development, which depends upon gender! No matter how you slice it, there is no way to separate gender from sexual orientation EXCEPT by psychopathology.

"I believe that anger is something that comes about from your environment."

No doubt it can, but some people are just naturally angry. The fact that one behavior is violent and one is not is irrelevant. The point is that you cannot justify ANYTHING by virtue of it being "natural." If the fact that anger problems can be natural can't justify violence, then neither can the assertion that homosexuality is natural justify sodomy.

"If homosexuality is some kind of chemical/hormonal imbalance disorder, then it definitely helps my case, because it makes it similar to hermaphrodites..."

No it doesn't. Hermaphrodites are born with both sets of gonads. Homosexuals are born completely normal. No doctor has ever been able to detect a gay newborn.

"if we let hermaphrodites chose their sex and even sexuality, then we should let homosexuals do the same."

In the first place, this argument is worthless since there is no comparison whatever between hermaphroditism and homosexuality. In the second, you said earlier that homosexuality isn't a choice. Now you're saying it is a choice. Which is it?

We can't prevent homosexuals from doing what they want to do. However, it is clearly an unhealthy, unnatural, AND immoral lifestyle and we CAN discourage it by not legally acknowledging it as normal and acceptable. Frankly, I don't understand why someone who is not gay such as yourself would go to such lengths to defend homosexuality.
Posted by kgantchev 5 years ago
kgantchev
"The hormones produced in abundance by our sex organs are responsible for the sexual dimorphism during our embryonic development. The same hormones that produce our sexual anatomy are also responsible for the characteristics and chemical reactions of our brains."

OK, to be blunt: your member is locked up in your pants, he doesn't see the women around you. You on the other hand do see the women around you and the sexual attraction happens in your head first... you perceive something attractive and your body reacts to it, the hormones might be produced by the genital organs, but it all starts with what you see and view as attractive. I didn't say that the chemicals weren't produced in that specific area, I said that the attraction happens in your head first. How that chemical process works isn't entirely known...

"Once again, anger problems don't justify my hitting people. Furthermore, I don't really see how you're helping your case by accepting the premise that it's a disease."
This is nature vs nurture now, I believe that anger is something that comes about from your environment. Moreover, you're comparing violent behavior with non-violent behavior... it's clearly different.

If homosexuality is some kind of chemical/hormonal imbalance disorder, then it definitely helps my case, because it makes it similar to hermaphrodites... if we let hermaphrodites chose their sex and even sexuality, then we should let homosexuals do the same.

Ultimately it's the case of the exception which matters. That's all I have to say, this commenting is taking too much of my time... so I'll leave it at that. Thanks!
Posted by SnoopyDaniels 5 years ago
SnoopyDaniels
"While you're correct that their sex organs are 'completely normal' I disagree that their sexuality is completely normal."

I also disagree that their sexuality is completely normal. that's what I've been trying to tell you and libertarian. The question is, why isn't it completely normal. If our male physiology is what attracts us to females, that same anatomy should also attract homosexuals to females. Obviously it doesn't, and the only explanation for that is psychopathology.

"Not true... that's simply not true. Sexual attraction happens in your head, not in your sexual organs (they react to what happens in your head)."

Fortunately for us, it is true. The hormones produced in abundance by our sex organs are responsible for the sexual dimorphism during our embryonic development. The same hormones that produce our sexual anatomy are also responsible for the characteristics and chemical reactions of our brains. Still, attraction does appear to happen "in the head" which is precisely why homosexuality is easily explained by psychopathology.

"If sexuality is not a choice, then the person has no way of really being considered a sinner. One's disorder is not a sin... this is my KEY arguemnt!"

Unfortunately, it's also a poor argument. The Bible doesn't say that it's a sin to have an abnormal sexual orientation, as long as one doesn't entertain it, it says it's a sin to engage in the act.

"If a person does what their disorder drives them to do, then I don't see how it's a sin."

Once again, anger problems don't justify my hitting people. Furthermore, I don't really see how you're helping your case by accepting the premise that it's a disease.
Posted by kgantchev 5 years ago
kgantchev
Regarding to your claim that you proved the Bible condemns gays, I still disagree, the Bible's condemnaton of gays really comes down to the translation which you use, and that's a LOONG conversation. Since this is a comment section, we're not really adhering to the debate "rules", but suppose we treat it as a debate...

"Hermaphroditism has nothing in common with homosexuality. Homosexuals are born completely normal, with the appropriate gonads for their sex."
You contradict this claim a bit later, but even looking at it this way I still maintain my position that homosexuality is a sort of hermaphroditism on the sexuality. While you're correct that their sex organs are "completely normal" I disagree that their sexuality is completely normal.

"There is no way to separate ones "sexual preference" from ones sexual anatomy. The anatomy produces the physical and emotional attraction."
Not true... that's simply not true. Sexual attraction happens in your head, not in your sexual organs (they react to what happens in your head).

"However, engaging in homosexual activity IS."
If sexuality is not a choice, then the person has no way of really being considered a sinner. One's disorder is not a sin... this is my KEY arguemnt! If a person does what their disorder drives them to do, then I don't see how it's a sin. If a mentally challenged person sins, for example by fornicating with an animal, then I think they have a pretty good "excuse". Same with homosexuals.

Well I suppose a cure is an appropriate solution, but until we find a "cure" then I don't think we should be punish people for something they're born with. Doing the Christian supression of sexuality does not help, as we saw with Mr. Haggard... it simply doesn't work, it goes on the DL and it destroys families.

"Neither would their lifestyle be justified by the fact that they were born that way."
I'll be glad to debate that :).
20 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by A51 5 years ago
A51
libertarianSnoopyDanielsTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by ghegeman 5 years ago
ghegeman
libertarianSnoopyDanielsTied
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 
Vote Placed by josh_42 5 years ago
josh_42
libertarianSnoopyDanielsTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by magpie 5 years ago
magpie
libertarianSnoopyDanielsTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by jjmd280 5 years ago
jjmd280
libertarianSnoopyDanielsTied
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 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 5 years ago
KRFournier
libertarianSnoopyDanielsTied
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:07 
Vote Placed by Killer542 5 years ago
Killer542
libertarianSnoopyDanielsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by debatist 5 years ago
debatist
libertarianSnoopyDanielsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by shdwfx 5 years ago
shdwfx
libertarianSnoopyDanielsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by christiandebater 5 years ago
christiandebater
libertarianSnoopyDanielsTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03