The Instigator
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Dishoungh
Con (against)
Winning
81 Points

Homos should not be allowed to vote

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 14 votes the winner is...
Dishoungh
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/24/2014 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,130 times Debate No: 55366
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (281)
Votes (14)

 

LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

homos should not be allowed to vote
Dishoungh

Con


I accept.



Thesis


Homosexuals should be allowed to vote if they choose to be. We should not discriminate homosexuals just because of their sexual orientation. That shouldn’t even be anyone’s concern.



Argument #1


(There are homosexual politicians out there)


According to Wikipedia, a list is provided of names of Gay and Lesbian Politicians.


[http://en.wikipedia.org...]


[http://en.wikipedia.org...]


Since there are this many gay/lesbian politicians, it wouldn’t make sense to discriminate homosexuals to vote because there are already homosexual politicians out here.


[http://itsconceivablenow.com...]


This link above shows a list of gay politicians in Congress and famous overall politicians.



Argument #2


(They are already allowed to vote, and we are just fine.)


It’s not like homosexuals are causing a negative impact to political voting. Voting is their right just like me (I’m an African American), and homosexuals. Homosexuals are just like us except they are attracted to different things. How does sexual orientation have any correlation with political voting? They don’t.


An Act called “The Voting Rights Act of 1965” has already prohibited ANY DISCRIMINATION in voting. No, this act is not just towards racial segregation. This act is considered a landmark of civil rights legislation. Just because it says civil rights, doesn’t mean it’s just for racial purposes. The following factors falls under the category Civil and Political Rights:




  • Race




  • Gender




  • National Origin




  • Colour (Human Skin Color)




  • SEXUAL ORIENTATION




  • Ethnicity




  • Religion




  • Disability




  • Privacy




  • Press




  • Assembly




  • Movement




  • Etc.




[http://en.wikipedia.org...]


[http://en.wikipedia.org...]



Argument #3


(Sexual Orientation has nothing to do with voting)


This argument is self-explanatory.


Homosexuals are just, simply, people who are attracted to one’s own sex. That’s it. They don’t have a disability on voting.




Debate Round No. 1
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

Homos will always vote in favor of butt buddies which is yucky and weird......yucky and weird things are not good for society, so homos should not be allowed to vote. It's bad enough that they are allowed to proclaim their love of yuckiness in front of people who don't let their sexual impulses guide their beliefs.
Dishoungh

Con

("Homos will always vote in favor of butt buddies which is yucky and weird")

Pro's assertion is completely groundless, unproven, and contradicts itself. People who are not homosexual do the exact same thing. Democrats vote for Democratic politicians. Rupublicans vote for Republican politicans. So, you're saying that your friends and family are yucky and weird for voting for Republican or Democratic? Homosexuality has absolutely no significant influence in political voting. Homosexuality has nothing to do with voting at all for that matter.

("yucky and weird things are not good for society, so homos should not be allowed to vote")


Pro is basing off his affirms off of what he thinks is gross and abnormal, both of which shows no validity to a debating argument. If someone finds Homosexuality gross and weird, then okay then. There's nothing wrong with being grossed out. But, in terms of the validity of Pro's argument, that's invalid because being grossed out is a choice. People are disgusted by different things than different people. But, saying Homosexuality is gross just makes Pro's argument subjective instead of objective. I mean, Sex is gross to some people, but is it wrong? I doubt it is. Again, this affirm contradicts itself becausse there are yucky and weird things that we, humans, do that are actually good for society.



("It's bad enough that they are allowed to proclaim their love of yuckiness in front of people who don't let their sexual impulses guide their beliefs")


That shouldn't even be Pro's concern of who's attracted to who. Again, this affirm shows no validity to his position. I mean, this is just common sense. All of the affirms you've addressed are just a display of bias and bigotry towards homosexuals. Plus, it does not support your position at all.



I'm noticing Pro's change of subject. He altered the subject of homosexuality rights of voting to homosexuality is yucky and gross.



Unlike Pro's case, my cases are objective instead of subjective like Pro's. My assertions are not based off of bias and bigotry. Plus, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 completely protects rights of homosexuals, so there's nothing you can do about it. Plus, I've already given a list of gay politicians.


Debate Round No. 2
LifeMeansGodIsGood

Pro

Felons are not allowed to vote, sodomy should be considered a felony as it was untill recently in many or most states, no I don't care to do the exact counting or a precise rundown of which states had laws against sodomy as a felony......I know the laws are changing and they are pushing laws to outlaw what I am saying as "hate speech'. That does not mean it is normal or good for men to abuse themselves with each other just because they feel like it, nor for woman to abuse each other sexually no matter how much they enjoy it. Enjoying it does not make it right, and a society that does not have the hootzpah to set limitations on perversion cannot remain a free society for long. It will become necessary for other nations to take over, or an opprossive government to rise which is what is happening now in America where we used to have freedom of speech but "progressives" are pushing to ban speech that does not fit their politics. Homos should not be allowed to vote..........

all sex outside of marriage should be against the law.......I'm not discriminating. All fornicators and adulterers should be hit with felonies and being felons, not allowed to vote.
Dishoungh

Con

Pro is comparing homosexuals to felons, which still doesn't bring any validity to his position. Most homosexuals are not criminals. Comparing Felons to Homosexuals is like comparing Gold to Silver. Felons are not allowed to vote because they are in prison and it wouldn't matter if they voted or not because they're in jail. Felons have their rights taken away because they made a faulty choice. Innocent Homosexuals have their rights to vote just like everyone else. Just because a certain group of people aren't allowed to vote doesn't mean that you should bring it up towards Homosexuals. We're not debating about felons here. Pro also thinks sodomy, which is an oral or anal intercourse of sex, should be considered a felony. Again, sexual intercourse has nothing to do with this debate topic which is "Homos should not be allowed to vote." He also did not give any statistics of which states had sodomy laws because he said "no I don't care to do the exact counting or a precise rundown of which states had laws against sodomy as a felony." That just comes to show that Pro is too lazy to provide any evidence to support his case. Sodomy laws in the U.S has been repealed and struck down ever since before the 70's.


Again, this affirm is off topic because felons and sodomy laws have absolutely nothing to do with voting. Pro has completely lost focus on his own debate subject.

Pro continues to declare statement that have little or no relation to what we're debating about still. Pro is saying that men and women are sexually abusing themselves for their enjoyment, while misusing the term "sexual abuse." Sexual abuse is basically sexual assault. Sexual assault is "a statutory offense that provides that it is a crime to knowingly cause another person to engage in an UNWANTED SEXUAL ACT by force or threat."

Based on the definitions I provided, Pro's assertions is proven fallacious. He's saying that just because a person enjoys something doesn't make it right. Although, that is true in a general sense, that statement does not apply well with sex. Sex is human nature. It's one of our most basic needs as a human being according to Abraham Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.
[http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_hierarchy_of_needs]

Then, Pro blathers about nations taking over and progressives, again, that proves no validity to his position, supports it, nor does it have any relationship to the topic at hand.

Lastly, Pro states that all sex outside of marriage should be against the law and that all "fornicators" and "adulterers" should be considered felons and not allowed to vote. This, again, has no relationship to the topic. Pro has completely moved away from the topic of homosexuals and now applies his topic to everything else as he says "ALL SEX." People can choose to have sex before marriage if they choose to. The effects of sex before marriage is non-existent. This affirmation shows nothing, but bias and prejudice because Pro feels that sexual obligation is immoral. (Again, that affirm is subjective because morals are subjective and dogmatic.) Those dogmatic affirms prove nothing to Pro's case at all. Pro also states that he is not discriminating, while his position is for the act of taking away homosexuals civil rights of voting which follows the definition of discriminate.

Discriminate - To mare an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, sex, or age.

I've noticed the terms "fornicators" and "adulterers" is related to Christian morals. Although, I am a Christian, this still has nothing to do with political voting. Other than politics, I've researched that fornication is not really pre-marital sex. Fornication is the act of having sex with a person that YOU HAVE NOT ESTABLISHED AN ACTIVE RELATIONSHIP with. Adultery is EXTRAMARITAL SEX which is having sex with someone that is not your spouse. Although, I will agree that these sexual acts are "immoral" I suppose; however, these affirmations are not valid to prove your case on the topic. These cases would be valid in a topic like "Fornication is immoral" or some other topic that's related to sex, not a topic that's related to politics. The definition of fornication and adultery that some people use is oversimplified and doesn't follow its true meaning.


Reasons why Pro should lose

1. He did not give any valid assertions
2. He was always off topic
3. He was changing the subject
4. His statements are an act of prejudice and bigotry towards a group of people and promotes discrimination against those group of people.
5. He did not provide any sources to support his case whatsoever.


Debate Round No. 3
281 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Dishoungh 2 years ago
Dishoungh
Yeah, sure.
Posted by Shadow-Dragon 2 years ago
Shadow-Dragon
Wow! Close debate. I think Pro deserved more votes; voters clearly biased...
Posted by Dishoungh 2 years ago
Dishoungh
Yeah, it's like saying that just because someone you loved went into a car accident and she drove a Honda, you blame or boycott the Honda company just because she died in a Honda.
Posted by Saska 2 years ago
Saska
I'm sorry to hear that people you loved were killed, but boycotting bars because the people who killed them were at a bar is like boycotting a church because the people who killed them went to church that day. The logic doesn't make sense.
Posted by Saska 2 years ago
Saska
In that case...

A man walks into a restaurant and tells the server "if I can show you the most incredible thing you've ever seen, can I have a free meal?" The server agrees and the man pulls out a tiny little man from his pocket, and a tiny grand piano. The tiny man starts playing the most incredible music in the world. The server, amazed by this, gives the man a free meal. Then the server asks, where did you get such a thing? The man shows the server a magic lamp and says "this genie will grant you one wish." He gives the server the lamp and says "choose your wish wisely."

The server takes the lamp into the back and moments later the restaurant gets filled with ducks; a countless number of ducks. Outraged, the server comes back into the restaurant shouting "sir, I think your genie has a hearing problem. I asked for a million bucks!" The man replied, "of course he does, how do you think I ended up with a 10" pianist?" (The man wanted a larger member in order to better please his loving wife of 15 years)

Better?
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
Just because something feels good to you does not make it right. I am against bars and bar jokes and sodomy and all sex acts outside of marriage which is the merger of a man and a woman into one flesh in a sacred covenant.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
I don't read bar jokes. People I love were killed by people leaving bars. I'm sure they had fun drinking and telling bar jokes before they killed my loved ones. No bar jokes for me, thank yoiu.
Posted by Saska 2 years ago
Saska
It's very clear that we each have a very different sense of humour. I don't find those jokes funny at all. But at least I read your jokes rather than judging them by the opening couple words. Laughing is laughing. Why would you refuse to read a joke because of the first couple words. Bar jokes don't have to be dirty, and if it makes you laugh, what does it matter? Is there something in the bible that says thou shalt not find enjoyment in tales from the tavern?
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
ok.......mafia jokes.

I'm your Uncle Vinny, and you are grown up now and I want to make sure you understand some jokes.

Why did the chicken cross the road?

Your answer: "I don't know"

That's right!!!! You don't know! You never saw any chicken. You were not on that road when the chicken crossed it. Maybe he went to whack another chicken.

ok, good my nephew, you are doing very good.

Now a nursery rhyme for you to remember:

Humpty Dumpty sat on a wall.
Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
Nobody pushed him! He just fell!
All of the kings horses, and all of the kings men
Took care of the body.
You didn't see anything.
Posted by LifeMeansGodIsGood 2 years ago
LifeMeansGodIsGood
ok, the binary code joke is pretty good, but i'm not enough fo a computer whiz to catch it without too much thought so by the time I uderstand it, it's too late for me to laugh. I do not understand binary code, though I do understand the joke........my lack of understanding of binary code .........wel I guess, ho ha, I'm one of the ten who does not understand it..........

I won't be telling that joke since I have to admit I do not understand binary code. It's a good joke for people who do understand binary code.
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Your_Conscience 2 years ago
Your_Conscience
LifeMeansGodIsGoodDishounghTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con won, since Pro did not offer many good, and convincing arguments.
Vote Placed by Sagey 2 years ago
Sagey
LifeMeansGodIsGoodDishounghTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's argument is fallacious and not supported by any sourced evidence. Con provided great rebuttals and supporting sources.
Vote Placed by FuzzyCatPotato 2 years ago
FuzzyCatPotato
LifeMeansGodIsGoodDishounghTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed BoP by appealing to disgust, which is both fallacious and refuted by Con, who made arguments that Pro failed to refute.
Vote Placed by TrustmeImlying 2 years ago
TrustmeImlying
LifeMeansGodIsGoodDishounghTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Either PRO is an incredibly ignorant excuse for an individual, or is trying (and failing) to troll. Either way, CON made an argument, PRO didn't. CON wins, essentially by default.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 2 years ago
funwiththoughts
LifeMeansGodIsGoodDishounghTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were nothing but bigotry, and his grammar was horrible.
Vote Placed by Juan_Pablo 2 years ago
Juan_Pablo
LifeMeansGodIsGoodDishounghTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro was offensive and didn't provide any sources to defended his poorly constructed arguments. He had poor spelling and grammar too. Con put in a lot more effort and did a fantastic job defending his position against Pro, even though he really didn't have to. Con demolished Pro's resolution!
Vote Placed by Ragnar 2 years ago
Ragnar
LifeMeansGodIsGoodDishounghTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: NULL VOTE: Too much bias against the flawed views held by pro, to vote fairly on this one. However pro's behavior in the comments is overpowering enough that it would possibly warrant conduct; in addition to insulting many members in his argument. S&G are in con's favor, but possibly not by enough to take the point (pro's errors are unlikely to distract from his case). Arguments are pretty much no contest (a reason would still need to be given). Sources are truly no contest in con's favor, con did his research and presented the evidence of it clearly.
Vote Placed by Raymond_Reddington 2 years ago
Raymond_Reddington
LifeMeansGodIsGoodDishounghTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Terribly offensive conduct from pro, horrible spelling and grammar, and no real arguments from pro. This is easily on of the most one sided debates I have ever read on DDO.
Vote Placed by SNP1 2 years ago
SNP1
LifeMeansGodIsGoodDishounghTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro had no sources, failed to stay on topic, was not using debate like conduct, and used poor grammar.
Vote Placed by Finalfan 2 years ago
Finalfan
LifeMeansGodIsGoodDishounghTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: I'm sorry but Pro conducted the worst debate I have ever seen and backed it up with homophobic resolutions that belong in a junior high school conflict equal to tormenting someone for piercing their right ear! I felt sorry for Con even participating in this. He at least tried and I give him credit for not simply replying with WTF