The Instigator
charles15
Pro (for)
Losing
38 Points
The Contender
Maikuru
Con (against)
Winning
41 Points

Homosexuality Should Not be Permitted

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 12 votes the winner is...
Maikuru
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/28/2009 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 15,303 times Debate No: 7593
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (16)
Votes (12)

 

charles15

Pro

Thank you, to my opponent for accepting my challenge.

To begin with, statistics show that homosexuals remain faithful to one another only 25% of the time, on the other hand, heterosexual couples remain faithful to one another 80% of the time. Professionals say that the reason for only 25% of homosexuals remaining faithful to their partners is because homosexual relationships are 'unnatural,' this is not how humans were designed to live and function. Also according to, http://www.bfamilyadvocates.com......, medical professionals have affirmed that these kinds of sexual relationships are unhealthy. A society that accepts immoral relationships cause children to stumble into immorality. Now, what is being derived from the statistics above is this, homosexuals often adopt children or have children by other means. This could be harmful to the child for many reasons. For one, the gay couple have a 75% chance of separating, since this is true the son or daughter would undergo a lot of emotional distress. For instance, children whose parents get divorced have a much higher tendency to drop out of school and or go to prison. So, if the the vast population of humans were to become gay, then this would cause any society, on a large scale, to become corrupt, unnatural, and more violent over all. For these reasons homosexual marriage should remain illegal and can harm other people.

Another reason why homosexual marriage should remain illegal is because of the effects that two men or two women have in raising a child. For instance imagine not having a real father or mother the effects that this would have on the upcoming generation would be catastrophic. Both the father and the mother each play a different but necessary and fulfilling role through out the child's process of maturing physically, mentally and sociologically. Children who are missing either a father or mother are much more likely to go to prison by the time they reach adult hood. According to Dr. Robert A. Muehleisen, a clinical psychologist and a father of three children said that, "Studies suggest that fathers encourage independence and risk taking, and that they are especially adept at teaching problem solving skills" (Johnson, 1997, p. 2).

Now that we have observed the damage that a homosexual lifestyle can bring to a society let us move to a different way of looking at the issue. If homosexuality is to be condemned legal, then why should bestiality or polygamy not be condemned legal as well? Shouldn't the people who are in favor of these lifestyles, be entitled their right "to the pursuit of happiness"? I say no, marriage should be strictly between one man and one woman of the legal age. In this debate my opponent and the voters must realize that we live in a free country, but there are still limitations encompassed within our nation, so that America's society may remain stable.

According to, http://www.apologeticspress.org......, "Of those living today in America who were alive 50 years ago, few could have imagined, let alone predicted, that homosexuality would encroach on our culture as it has. In fact, it would have been unthinkable."
If this article is talking about 50 years ago, then it is definitely conceivable that 230 years ago the same (if not more so), idea of homosexuality applied. So when our founding fathers wrote the Constitution, experts presume that the idea of homosexuality was not even in the back of their minds. In fact, many of the founding fathers were Christians, and even if they weren't many of them based their ideas off Christianity nun the less. For example, historians have come to believe that Thomas Jefferson was not a Christian and yet he said "The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man." This implies that even though some of the major founding fathers were not Christians, they based there thinking off Christian principles. Therefore homosexuality was never intended to be part of America's society. This is most likely why the issue is not even mentioned in the Constitution.

Thank you and good luck,
charles15
Maikuru

Con

I'd like to thank my opponent for creating this interesting debate. This is my first debate on a serious topic and I am very excited.

::Definitions::

My opponent has not offered two critical definitions, so it is my place to do so:

- Homosexuality: Erotic activity with another of the same sex [1]
- Permit: To give leave; authorize [2]

To ensure clarity, I'll also include:

- Erotic: Of, devoted to, or tending to arouse sexual love or desire [3]

In addition, my opponent has failed to clearly identify the resolution within his arguments. Given that he argues against homosexual acts, lifestyles, marriages, divorces, and adoptions, I can only assume that the crux of his case is that one stated in the title. That being said, my position will be that homosexuality – defined here as erotic activity with another of the same sex – should be permitted by law.

::Pro's Arguments::

I will first address my opponent's arguments before moving on to my own.

1. Homosexual Relationships are Unhealthy

Pro's sources separate the dangers of homosexuality into three categories:

a. It Damns the Soul: Claiming that homosexual behavior is unhealthy for one's soul has no bearing on whether or not the behavior should be legally permitted.

b. It Brings Immorality into Society: Societal acceptance of homosexuality is said to increase rates of homosexuality (which Pro equates here with immorality), with my opponent going so far as to say it may cause the "vast population of humans" to "become gay." Surely my opponent realizes that homosexuality is currently legal, yet the majority of humans remain heterosexual. In fact, rates of homosexuality have remained relatively constant for some time [4] and the vast majority of children raised by homosexual couples do not become homosexuals [5].

c. Physical Health: Like all sexual acts, homosexual acts carry with them certain risks. My opponent and his sources argue that these risks are increased when coupled with higher rates of infidelity. While promiscuity alone is not grounds to legally attack one population (or else I'd be in trouble), the question of disease does not hold up against comparisons with heterosexuals; the ratio of homosexuals to heterosexuals among humans negates any perceived imbalance in overall disease transmission. Furthermore, the sexual acts in question are not exclusive to homosexuals, are not practiced by all homosexuals, and the potential medical risks involved are all preventable.

If the argument is instead that homosexual acts pose too great a risk to the homosexuals, the discussion becomes one of freedom of choice. As the government does not interfere with such matters of choice concerning consensual sexual acts, this point has no relevance toward the resolution at hand.

2. Homosexual Couples are Damaging to Adopted Children

As I stated previously, my opponent's resolution refers to the act of homosexuality, not gay marriage or adoption by homosexual couples. He has offered no evidence that homosexual acts themselves have any influence on the emotional well-being of adopted children. Instead, his qualms seem to focus on the areas of divorce and single-parent households. Unfortunately, these areas are irrelevant to the resolution at hand.

3. Homosexuality as a ‘Gateway Orientation'

Pro claims that allowing homosexuality to remain legal begs one to wonder why other sexual practices, namely bestiality or polygamy, should not be legal. Such slippery slope reasoning has absolutely no bearing on the legality of homosexuality and no evidence has been produced to presume otherwise. These are independent issues with no causal relationship, making this point irrelevant to the resolution at hand.

4. Homosexuality was not Intended to be Part of our Society

Pro claims that because the founders of our country followed Christian ideals and could not have fathomed homosexuality becoming such a staple of our society, it was never meant to be a part of our society. Unfortunately, this represents an important contradiction in logic. If the founders were following Christian principles when establishing the laws of our country, it is unlikely that they would have made the error of excluding laws against a Christian sin. Instead, the founders saw fit to separate matters of church and state, making any argument against the legality of homosexuality based on Christian beliefs baseless.

::Con's Arguments::

1. Homosexuality is Legal in the U.S.

This is not so much an argument as a little background. Homosexual acts, like most other non-harmful sexual acts, are legal in all U.S. states. Private, consensual sexual acts between adults are generally considered outside the scope of legal authority, with homosexuality being no exception. Though most were overturned sooner, the remaining laws against consensual sodomy in the United States were overturned by the supreme court in 2003 [6].

2. Making Homosexuality Illegal is Unwarranted

Sexual acts can be deemed unlawful in the U.S. when they involve one of a number of conditions, including involvement of a minor, a monetary exchange, a lack of consent by one party, or the inclusion of a lesser animal. Homosexuality does not fall under any legally restrictive category and because of this, a movement is currently underway to legalize the practice worldwide [7][8].

3. Making Homosexuality Illegal is Impracticable

It is impossible to ban sexual love or desire, making the only accessible legal avenue for Pro's position to be the physical acts of homosexuality. Specific sexual positions have been judged unlawful in the past (most of which having since been overturned), but effectively punishing these practices when performed among consenting adults in the privacy of their home is as difficult and unrealistic as punishing the desire itself.

I apologize for the brevity of my arguments but because my opponent has failed to present a single compelling point as to why homosexuality should no longer be legal, I will refrain from elaborating until I have his response. Also, the character limit is getting pretty close so I better take a breather.

::Conclusion::

As a consensual, non-harmful act, homosexuality is legal within the U.S. and should remain so until sufficient evidence is produced to indicate otherwise. Pro has offered no such evidence and has instead focused his arguments on a handful of irrelevant and baseless issues. Because the topic at hand is whether or not homosexual behavior should be permitted by law, questions about areas not directly related to such behavior (i.e. divorce, adoption) need not be considered. In addition, homosexual acts pose no sufficient medical risk to society, rates of homosexuality have not dramatically increased, there is no causal relationship between homosexuality and bestiality or polygamy, and there is no evidence that the founding fathers intended for the separation of church and state to make an exception for homosexuality.

I thank my opponent again for this debate and await his response.

::References::
1.http://www.merriam-webster.com...
2.http://www.merriam-webster.com...
3.http://www.merriam-webster.com...
4.http://www.krysalis.net...
5.http://www.soulforce.org...
6.http://www.law.duke.edu...
7.http://blogs.abcnews.com...
8.http://www.finda.com.au...
Debate Round No. 1
charles15

Pro

Thank you for your response, Maikuru.

::Responses::.

I will begin with clarifying my position, I believe that homosexuality should not be permitted. Maikuru says, "my opponent's resolution refers to the act of homosexuality, not gay marriage or adoption by homosexual couples." My resolution does not only refer to the act of homosexuality, but also everything that is a product of homosexuality, such as 'Marriage, Adoption, ect.'

>>>"He has offered no evidence that homosexual acts themselves have any influence on the emotional well-being of adopted children."<<<
I have never suggested that sexual, homosexual acts themselves, cause the psychological damage to a child. Those acts are not relevant to the up bringing of a child. But, I have claimed, along with many other certified doctors, that two men or two women raising a child, usually causes physical, mental and sociological problems within that child. Dr. Laura A. Haynes writes, "Nature is narrow; it sets up every child to have a mother and a father. Same sex marriages intentionally alter the natural situation and deprive a child of one of his or her parents. A child is left with a black hole where a mother or father should be. (Dr. Laura A. Haynes, Psychologist, Tustin, California; October 5, 2008, http://www.narth.com...).

>>>"Instead, the founders saw fit to separate matters of church and state, making any argument against the legality of homosexuality based on Christian beliefs baseless."<<<
The Founding Fathers never intended for 'God' to be taken out of the Constitution. Separation between church and state means that the government should have no established religion by which every American must fallow. It does 'not' mean that religion should have nothing to do with the fundamentals of the U.S. And since the founding father's based there ideals off Christian principals and 96% of there recorded quotes were pertaining to the Christian God or actually mentioned God within the quote, then one can still make the argument that the founding fathers did not intend for homosexuality to be part of American Society. Why? Because even 80 years ago, let alone 230, if someone asked, "should homosexuals be permitted in society?" Well, then the person being asked, would probably laugh at the person asking the question, because the whole aspect of homosexuality, at the time, was an obvious, 'of course not!!' So that argument is definitely not "baseless" like my opponent said.

Here is an example of homosexuality being condemned illegal in the America:
"Many of the early American colonies, for example, enacted stiff 'CRIMINAL' penalties for 'SODOMY,' ...In some places, such as the New Haven colony, male and female homosexual acts were punishable by death (e.g., Katz, 1976)."
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu...

::How The APA Ended Up Deeming Homosexuality Rational::

The American Psychologist Association (APA) condemned homosexuality "normal" in 1793. This argument is widely used in pro homosexual arguments. But lets look closer to how this came about.
What most people don't know is that this change of events was not based on a "new social science discovery," the sudden change was because of a relentless campaign between the APA and homosexual activists.

Abram Kardiner, former Professor of Psychiatry at Columbia University, revealed that "A powerful lobby of "gay" organizations has brought pressure on the APA to remove homosexuality from the category of normalcy. This is only one facet of the tidal wave of egalitarianism and divisiveness that is sweeping the country...."

During this time Paul Gebhard, second director of the Kinsey Institute, following Alfred Kinsey himself, systematically excluded psychiatrists that did not comply with the notion of homosexuals do not have a mental disorder, from being a member of the Task Force or from even being able to present his or her views/evidence to the Task Force, of why homosexuality should remain a mental disorder. Eventually in 1973 the Task Force was able to condemn homosexuality on the same level with normal sexuality.

APA member Dr. Henry W. Reicken wrote, "Detailed Reservations Regarding the Task Force Recommendations on Social Policy: It is as if they 'the Task Force' said, Here is a phenomenon about which we know almost nothing and about which there is a great deal of anxiety and concern; therefore, let us suggest a major revision in public policy for dealing with this phenomenon. I cannot escape the belief that this is an utterly unreasonable conclusion to draw from the sea of ignorance and misinformation in which we find ourselves."

The essential point to be made about this deception, is that the sudden complete reversal in the APA position on homosexuality was not brought about as a result of a careful regime of scholarly research and study; it was a blatantly political move, a 'vote', of all things, on the status of a mental illness. Furthermore, this vote was undertaken in a climate of deception and intimidation.

The original "voting" letter distributed by the APA Homosexuality Task Force in 1973 was answered by only about one-quarter of the recipients, leading one to speculate that the "volunteer bias" ignored by Kinsey in his original studies led to pro-homosexual results. It is quite certain that, if 'all' of the APA members had returned their "ballots," homosexuality would have remained a mental disorder in the view of the organization.

In 1977, four years after the APA 'switch,' the journal "Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality" revealed that it had polled 2,500 psychiatrists on their view of what "current thinking on homosexuality" was, and, by a lopsided margin of 69% to 18% (nearly four to one, with 13%undecided). the respondents answered that "Homosexuality was usually a pathological adaptation as opposed to a normal variation."

Now, why is this significant to the legality of homosexuality? The APA alone, has a huge impact on politics and how things are judged by the judiciary system in this country, thus the verdict of the APA's decision played a significant role in homosexual rights.

::Homosexual Marriage (a product of homosexuality)::

A very important issue that must be made apparent is if homosexual marriage is made legal and Constitutional, then this will not only make a radical change in how society looks at marriage, but, it will deteriorate freedom of religion as Americans know it. Glen T. Stanton, Senior Analysts for marriage and Sexuality at Focus on the Family, also author of the book "Marriage on Trial," Dr. Erwin Lutzer, Author of "The Truth About Same Sex Marriage, and Dr. John Ankerberg, all affirm this. Now, examples of this have already happened in Sweden and Canada.

In Sweden a pastor conducted a sermon on homosexuality , the pastor condemned homosexuality as sinful, thus him and his congregation did not approve of homosexuality. So a homosexual, not even a member of the church, became outraged and reported the pastor and his sermon to local authorities. There was a trial and the verdict found the pastor guilty for his sermon and he spent a month in jail. Now the point that is being derived here is that if homosexual marriage is condemned legal in the U.S. then these same cases will most likely occur in the U.S. explained Glen T. Stanton. Do to the amount of characters I have left able to type, I can not go into much more detail. Here is the source...
Maikuru

Con

Thank you for a fast response, charles15.

I will begin by addressing my opponent's original arguments, move on to his new points, and conclude by reviewing my original arguments.

::Pro's Original Arguments::

1.Homosexual Relationships are Unhealthy

Pro has offered no defense of his arguments that homosexuality is an unhealthy lifestyle and increases rates of homosexuals. Ignoring these points is tantamount to a concession and I will regard it as such.

2.Homosexual Couples are Damaging to Adopted Children

Sadly, Pro wishes to expand the scope of his original resolution. The resolution states that homosexuality should not be permitted, with homosexuality defined here as erotic activity with another of the same sex. While my opponent may wish to speak out against gay marriage, divorce, and adoption, these areas have no relevance to the actual resolution. A debate against divorce or single-parent households would be more appropriate for such discussion.

3.Homosexuality as a ‘Gateway Orientation'

Pro has offered no defense of his argument that acceptance of homosexuality leads to bestiality and polygamy. Ignoring this point is once again tantamount to a concession and shall be regarded as such.

4.Homosexuality was not Intended to be Part of our Society

While the quotes of the founding fathers may often reference faith, our judicial system has already interpreted their written laws as permitting homosexuality. In fact, given their deep knowledge of Christianity, the fact that they chose not to mention homosexuality in any of the founding documents may speak more toward tolerance than disapproval. No matter how much my opponent believes he better understands the mindset of the founders, his disagreement is based solely on personal interpretations and assumptions.

::Pro's New Arguments::

1.Homosexuality was Illegal in the Past

The mention of long overturned anti-homosexuality laws is both irrelevant and counterproductive to my opponent's case. As I stated previously, all such laws were deemed unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court and abolished; "Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, held that the right to privacy protects a right for adults to engage in private, consensual homosexual activity. [1]" Mentioning such archaic laws serves only to remind us of a time when our justice system was more deeply distorted by personal and religious biases.

2.The APA's Decision

My opponent has copied and pasted much of a lengthy speech about homosexuality and the psychiatric community. I thank charles15 for providing me with the source of this material [2], but am perplexed as to its relevance. Pro claims that the speech, courtesy of the Eternal World Television Network [3], reveals that laws allowing homosexuality should never have been passed. However, the Supreme Court's ruling of homosexuality as a legally protected right was based on their interpretation of the 14th amendment [1][4], not any psychological interpretation of homosexuality. Pro's attempt to link the Supreme Court's decision and the APA's decision is flawed and unsubstantiated.

As a side-note, Pro's source completely perverts the reality behind the APA's decision, which was actually based on a gradual ideological shift away from Freudian and Neo-Freudian interpretations of sexuality. Fortunately, that flagrantly untrue speech is irrelevant as the entire argument does nothing to support Pro's position.

3.Gay Marriage Means the Death of Religion

Pro and his video claim that gay marriage makes it impossible to sermonize against this sin. Unfortunately, this claim is both incredibly inaccurate (religions can and do speak out against numerous legal practices, such as abortion) and completely irrelevant to an argument on whether homosexuality should be legal.

4.Video Presentation

While this video might provide validation for those who already hold these beliefs, it provides zero evidence for any of its claims. Brandishing extreme statements such as "if we legalize same sex marriage…it will dehumanize women and men" and "both gays and lesbians can change their sexual orientation" without providing so much as a line of reasoning does little to bolster its credibility. Finally, it speaks out (poorly) against only gay marriage, which I remind my opponent and the voters is irrelevant to the resolution at hand.

::Con's Original Arguments::

Pro has offered no rebuttal to any of my original arguments, indicating a concession on his part. As such, I will include only a short review of each. Elaboration and sources are available in Round 1.

1.Homosexuality is Legal in the U.S.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that consensual homosexual acts between adults fall under the right to privacy and are legal within the United States.

2.Unwarranted

Homosexual behavior does not include any acts deemed illegal in the U.S., making any laws against homosexuality unwarranted and without basis.

3.Impractical

It is impossible for the government to enact laws against sexual desires or feelings, and producing effective laws against sexual acts between consenting adults in private is improbable to the point of ridiculousness.

::Conclusion::

My opponent has made no effort to defend his claims against the act of homosexuality (i.e. it is unhealthy, it leads to bestiality) and continues to argue against non-resolution items. Gay marriage, divorce, and adoption have nothing to do with the resolution and are irrelevant. At this point, my opponent has not offered a single valid argument in support of the resolution and no rebuttal against my arguments against the resolution.

I remind my opponent that the resolution concerns the legality of homosexuality and urge him to produce an argument against this issue.

::References::

1.http://www.law.duke.edu...
2.http://rantweb.proboards.com...
3.http://ewtn.com...
4.http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
charles15

Pro

Thank you for your response.

Children raised by a homosexual couple are being deprived of certain aspects of life that only a father or a mother can provide. To accept homosexuality and everything that is a product of it, such as homosexual marriage and adoptions is also accepting the idea that children do not need a father or mother; children only need one of the two to develop normal sociological skills.
Psychologist Dr. Laura A. Haynes writes, "A same sex couple is inherently deficient in ability to prepare a child for the future heterosexual married life that the vast majority of children will aspire to as adults. Two parents of the same sex cannot teach a child how to relate deeply to both sexes in the same way that growing up with married parents—one of each sex—can. Nature is narrow; it sets up every child to have a mother and a father. Same sex marriages intentionally alter the natural situation and deprive a child of one of his or her parents. A child is left with a black hole where a mother or father should be."

My opponent states that we should ban divorce instead of homosexual marriage. Although I agree with him in the sense that I think divorce is definitely to common in this country. I believe with the rates of divorce in America it erodes the sanctity of marriage and I also believe that divorce is terrible for children in having to be separated from one of their parents. If we made divorce illegal for homosexuals this would only prolong the unnatural process of raising of children. Also my opponent seems to forget that homosexual relationships are unhealthy, not only for the children, but for the homosexual oneself (more details below), and with no way to legally separate married homosexuals there would be only a higher rate of depression among homosexuals. Also many homosexuals just live together and never get married, but they still have children by adoption or other means, so to make divorce illegal would do nothing to stop homosexual relationships from separating.

38% of male homosexuals said the longest relationship they had ever had was less than one year. The average length of longest relationship and the most frequent response for the men was 2 years. The longest relationship for lesbians was on average thirty-eight months. In contrast, the average heterosexual relationship lasts for 25 years.

With the following paragraph written by Dr. Haynes it becomes clear that homosexuality at its core is a twisted perversion, that is constantly full of fear and paranoia. So not only are homosexuals damaging society, but homosexuals tend to destroy there own lives as well, with unsteady relationships and constantly being unfaithful to their partners. It is no wonder a gross amount of homosexuals undergo psychological depression and many end up taking there lives.
"Gay researchers (McWhierter and Mattison, 1984) studied 156 homosexual male couples that had been together between one and thirty-seven years. They found that one hundred per cent of the couples had infidelity
within the first five years. Couples were still together past the ten year mark only if they accepted the painful reality of infidelity in their relationship. The gay researchers said, "In fact, more than 85 percent of the couples report that
their greatest relationship problems center on outside relationships, sexual and nonsexual" (p. 256). Some couples arrive at agreements or rules for outside sexual relationships with "anguish, pain, hurt, and heartache" (p. 258).
Further, they said, "Our observations lead us to think that these rules are attempts at control in an area that continues to be an elusive source of anxiety and fear for most couples. They feel that the sexual monster inside of each of
us needs bridling. We do not trust it in our partners, and least of all in ourselves" (p. 259)."

According to http://tedmathis.blogspot.com......, "A new study in the United Kingdom has revealed that homosexuals are about 50% more likely to suffer from depression and engage in substance abuse than the rest of the population...Dr. Rick Fitzgibbons, a psychiatrist...says there is evidence that homosexuality is itself a manifestation of a psychological disorder accompanied by a host of mental health problems, including "major depression, suicidal ideation and attempts, anxiety disorders, substance abuse, conduct disorder, low self-esteem in males and sexual promiscuity with an inability to maintain committed relationships."

Through theses reports one can conclude that homosexual relationships lead to or are a result of alcohol abuse, mental health problems, major depression, suicidal attempts ect... Homosexual relationships are also very unstable and often very short, this has a negative impact on their children and overall, society.

Work Cited:
http://www.journeychristianministries.org......
http://tedmathis.blogspot.com......

Thank you, and I look forward to my opponent's next argument
charles15
Maikuru

Con

I'd like to thank charles15 for a very interesting debate. This was my first serious debate and I enjoyed it very much.

I will begin by addressing my opponent's points and then move on to a general summary of the debate.

First, though, I must point out that my opponent's entire R3 argument has been copied verbatim from his R1 in a gay marriage debate [1]. While I won't comment on the appropriateness of this action, I will state that by doing so he has completely ignored the majority of my arguments. As such, most of his R3 argument is irrelevant to this debate.

As a side note, I made a point not to read the remainder of that debate to ensure my arguments were in no way influenced by Pro's other opponent.

::Pro's Arguments::

1. Homosexual Couples Shouldn't Raise Children

This argument is irrelevant for two reasons. First, the resolution at hand is on homosexuality, defined here as erotic activity with another of the same sex. As gay marriage has nothing to do with this act or its legality, this is a non-resolution item and immaterial. Secondly, Pro's quibble with single-parent households is not exclusive to homosexual couples. Any home consisting of a single parent (as mine was), a single relative, a single guardian, or any possible non-romantic same-sex pairing would meet Pro's definition of a deficient and harmful household. This stance is both insultingly simplistic and completely unrelated to the resolution.

2. Divorce is Not an Option

This debate is about the act of homosexuality, not the act of homosexuality, followed by coupling, followed by marriage, followed by divorce. Furthermore, I never suggested banning divorce. By coping and pasting his entire argument, my opponent has confused my arguments with those of another debater.

3. Short, Troubled Homosexual Relationships

Essentially, my opponent is claiming that because homosexual relationships can be short lived and romantically troubled, they should be illegal. Of course, an objective reading of that sentence reveals its ridiculousness. If a sexual lifestyle was deemed legal only according to its effectiveness, both homosexuality and heterosexuality would be outlawed. According to my opponent's logic, heterosexuals, whose marriages end in divorce 40-50% of the time, and 20-24 year olds, who account for significantly more divorces that any other age group, should also be banned from marrying [2]. Infidelity and divorce are not exclusive to any orientation and labeling any one as a "twisted perversion" is not only hateful but also ignorant of the difficulties all individuals experience during relationships.

4. Homosexuals and Psychological Problems

Pro claims that homosexuals are more likely to experience depression and alcohol abuse but attributes these disorders with practicing an aberrant lifestyle. However, studies suggest the more likely culprit for these torments is the discrimination homosexuals face because of their sexual orientation [3][4]. A comprehensive 2004 study showed that the majority of homosexuals involved (83%) experienced some form of physical or emotional attack aimed at their sexuality, and the majority of these individuals came to associate their homosexuality with such psychological distress [3]. It would truly be a cruel example of irony to ostracize homosexuals because of psychological problems when these problems stem from being ostracized in the first place.

::Debate Recap::

The following resolution items were completely abandoned by Pro after my cross-examination:

• Homosexuality increases the rate of homosexuals
• Homosexuality leads to polygamy
• Homosexuality leads to bestiality
• Because homosexuality was illegal in the past, it should be illegal now
• Because the decision of the APA to declassify homosexuality as a mental illness was controversial, homosexuality should be illegal
• Homosexuality destroys religious freedom
• The founding fathers never meant for homosexuality to be a part of our society (note: this point was abandoned in R3)

The following non-resolution items were raised by Pro, seemingly only to confuse the issue at hand:

• Gay marriage
• Divorce of homosexual couples
• Adoption by homosexual couples
• Child rearing practices

The following are arguments I've raised that have gone completely unacknowledged by Pro, indicating a concession to these points:

• Consensual homosexual acts fall under the right to privacy and are legally protected
• Homosexuality contains no illegal acts and no new points brought up by my opponent constitute an illegal act
• One cannot outlaw love or desire and it is ineffective and impractical to outlaw private, consensual sex acts

::Closing::

This debate was very strange to me for a few reasons. Not only did my opponent spend the majority of his time debating non-resolution issues, but he never defended the resolution items he did present and never once argued against my points.

In terms of the resolution, I have demonstrated that a law against homosexuality would be unwarranted, inconsistent with current laws, and incredibly difficult to enforce. My opponent has offered no consistent argument against the legality of homosexuality and has offered no reason why legal homosexuality is detrimental to individuals or society.

For these reasons, I strongly urge a Con vote!

Thanks again, charles15, for the debate. Thanks also to the readers and voters!

::References::

1.http://www.debate.org...
2.http://www.divorcerate.org...
3.http://bjp.rcpsych.org...
4. http://depression.about.com...
Debate Round No. 3
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
LOL nice
Posted by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 4 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Please keep up the trouncing Maikuru. You are literally as$-raping your opponent right now. Way to show him who's boss.
Posted by Mark40511 7 years ago
Mark40511
Isn't it amazing how people will point out others flaws, as if they, themselves are not flawed human beings?
Posted by benjaminfranklin 8 years ago
benjaminfranklin
I live in the gay neighborhood of a big city, and I have seen the type of bigotry you wouldn't believe. Not all Christians are horrible. But, Charles, I assure you, some are. There was a festival called Outfest, and when I was there, Christians had set up a stand with signs and leaflets that spoke of hell and sin.

Also, I have Christian family members that talk this way about homosexuals. I guess they don't really exist, right Charles?

"I don't know of any Christian that speaks this way about homosexuals."

I appreciate the sentiment that name-calling is bad, and that you're trying to help people reform. I don't agree, but I understand. This is the problem with your argument though:

You don't advocate Christians yelling at homosexuals, you just advocate it being illegal for someone to be a homosexual. Go back to yelling, throwing people in jail is much, much worse.

It would be better if you just slur them than violate their rights. People like you are much more dangerous than simple bigots. You gloss over the hate you spread.

Homosexuals live with constant bigotry from Christians. This is their reality. If you are unaware of this, well, that's typical.

I am not biased by anything except for my direct experience with Christians who have insulted homosexuals, including some of my own family members, and people I've seen on the streets.

Christians are full of love and passion. They draw undeniable power from their beliefs, healing power. Communities are brought together by the religion. People learn morals from the religion. But anyone outside the religion is subject to abuse. You may not be this way, but many people are.

I feel sorry for you. You'll fight to hurt these people all your life, and you'll fail. God willing.
Posted by charles15 8 years ago
charles15
"Can you imagine someone telling you, to your face: you are worthless, sinning, insane, and immoral. You are a flamer, and you will burn in hell."

I don't know of any Christian that speaks this way about homosexuals. I wish benjaminefranklin would not be so biased, along with many other people who view Christians this way. I swear more and more the media makes Christians look like horrible people, this is simply not the case. Also people seem to forget that this country was, unquestionably, founded on Christian morals.

Anyways if Christians are honestly out there yelling at homosexuals for their sin then the Christian is not following the Bible. Jesus did not teach his decibels to spread the gospel in that fashion. Now, this also doesn't give homosexuals the lee way to make the argument, "Jesus says to love everyone, so why are you judging gay people." I hear that argument all the time and it drives me insane. First of all the Bible says to love your enemies, but not to let the sins that they do go unchecked. It is the SIN of the homosexual that we hate not the homosexual him or herself. And the Bible says to love that person, and hare the Gospel with them and in this way we help them whether they accept the Gospel or not. Christians should want to help homosexuals turn away from there homosexuality, and believe in Jesus - NOT hate the homosexuals and damn them to hell.
Posted by benjaminfranklin 8 years ago
benjaminfranklin
Another thing about raising families: it's really hard. You have to be a strong person, and have self-confidence to do it.

Can you imagine someone telling you, to your face: you are worthless, sinning, insane, and immoral. You are a flamer, and you will burn in hell.

And then going home to a kid, whose supposed to look up to you. Who you want to be like you? Who you want to love you and care about you? Try it Charles. Or at least think about it, and how much harder it would be.

The few homosexuals that get together and fight against that type of bigotry - power to them. And no wonder they have more trouble staying together. No wonder. Bigoted straight people are the problem, not homosexuals.
Posted by benjaminfranklin 8 years ago
benjaminfranklin
Gay marriage is still illegal in most situations. The illegality of this situation may be the cause of the increased percentage of divorces among homosexuals. This puts one of the PRO points in question.

Also, does divorce really screw up a child? Many, many children are brought up in single parent homes. Many children have step-mother's and step-father's. Does this spell doom for them? I know many well-balanced adults who have jobs, homes, etc. and didn't have a mother or father. These include, myself, my father, and many of my friends.

Also, socio-economic factors may come into play. More poor families get divorces. Poorer families have more problems, and their children face more adversity. Damning homosexuality on the basis of current divorce rate and influence on children is not enough of an argument against homosexuality in general.
Posted by Maikuru 8 years ago
Maikuru
Wow, my opponent has had quite the upswing in voter turnout in the past 24 hours. I guess you can never be sure until the voting period ends.
Posted by Maikuru 8 years ago
Maikuru
Thank you, untitled. I'm glad that you and others have preferred my arguments =D
Posted by untitled_entity 8 years ago
untitled_entity
My vote's for you Maikuru
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 8 years ago
Maikuru
charles15MaikuruTied
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 Alex 8 years ago
Alex
charles15MaikuruTied
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 
Vote Placed by benjaminfranklin 8 years ago
benjaminfranklin
charles15MaikuruTied
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 grayron 8 years ago
grayron
charles15MaikuruTied
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 
Vote Placed by JP 8 years ago
JP
charles15MaikuruTied
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 charles15 8 years ago
charles15
charles15MaikuruTied
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 dragonfire1414 8 years ago
dragonfire1414
charles15MaikuruTied
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 RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
charles15MaikuruTied
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 
Vote Placed by Zealotical 8 years ago
Zealotical
charles15MaikuruTied
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 YoungHoole 8 years ago
YoungHoole
charles15MaikuruTied
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