The Instigator
AndrewB686
Pro (for)
Winning
42 Points
The Contender
Inspired
Con (against)
Losing
8 Points

Homosexuality should be accepted by humanity

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 12 votes the winner is...
AndrewB686
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/10/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,326 times Debate No: 40270
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (19)
Votes (12)

 

AndrewB686

Pro

First Round is Acceptance.

Second Round is Arguments.

Third Round is Rebuttals.

Final Round is Conclusion.

I will be arguing in favor of:
-Homosexuality is a viable lifestyle.
-Homosexuals have the ability to effectively raise an adopted child.
-While a minority, Homosexuality is a natural orientation that has merit.
-Homophobia is detrimental to any nation that condones such a practice.

Homosexual- of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex

Sexual Orientation- the inclination of an individual with respect to heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual behavior

Homophobia- irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://www.merriam-webster.com...
http://www.merriam-webster.com...

I look forward to this debate and am eager to express my opinion in detail and wish to humbly thank anyone who will be kind enough to accept my debate.
Inspired

Con

As always, I look into the comments and the background of my opponent and his resolution before accepting a debate. One such comment brought up an excellent point to refine the points as listed. I understand where he is coming from, however I also understand what my opponent is trying to make clear, the resolution of equal rights of homosexuals. If the intention of my opponent is to cause deliberate unrest, then I would not like to be the gas on the fire and therefore withdraw from the debate.

Let me make it clear that I do not support homosexuality or the acceptance of it. Let it be known I accept and respect the person for who they are, not their personal lifestyle. I am a born again Christian and of a Conservative mindset. I will be using references from Scripture, which I consider to be valid and truth. As my opponent is atheist, I can understand that this may seem controversial, but the Bible is the foundation upon my argument nevertheless.

I will be arguing in favor of:
- The Bible is against homosexuality
- Marriage ought to be between a man and a woman
- Homosexuality is against nature
- A difference between religion and God's law
- The term homophobia as being a term exaggerated in today's society, and placed upon those who disagree with the practice.

I look forward to this debate. Thank you for such an interesting and crucial topic for society in this day and age.
Debate Round No. 1
AndrewB686

Pro

Thank you for accepting my debate and I look forward to hearing your arguments, as well as your opinions concerning mine.

1) Homosexuality is a viable lifestyle. (By this I mean the probability of obtaining and transmitting a venereal disease vs. that of heterosexuals.)

-The perception of homosexuals is that they are a vector for AIDS, syphilis, gonorrhea, etc.
-The fact of the matter is that all STDs can be transmitted regardless of sexuality to one's partner depending on the sexual act committed.

The University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Campus Resource Center stated on its website (accessed 2006):

"The truth is that being GLBT does not give you AIDS. Certain sexual practices, certain drug use behaviors and other factors can put you at risk for catching HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, as well as other sexually transmitted diseases (STDs)."

2006 - UCLA Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Campus Resource Center

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-Being a homosexual does not increase the probability of being an alcoholic; however, this may appear to be the case only because society throws a spotlight on gay individuals. The act of doing this highlights personal attributes as being the cause of taboo practices or illnesses instead of considering situational factors.

Gregory M. Herek, PhD, Professor of Psychology at the University of California at Davis, wrote in a 1991 article in American Psychologist titled "Avoiding Heterosexist Bias in Psychological Research":

"Phenomena should not be assumed to result from sexual orientation simply because they are observed in the gay community. Alcoholism, for example, is a serious problem in some sectors of the gay community. Attributing it to homosexuality per se, however, exemplifies the fundamental attribution bias... It explains behavior entirely in terms of personal characteristics while ignoring situational factors."

1991 - Gregory M. Herek, PhD

http://borngay.procon.org...

2) Homosexuals have the ability to effectively raise an adopted child.

-The reality is that homosexuals have the same capacity to raise a child as heterosexuals. In fact, it would be beneficial to society if adoption laws in various states ended their prohibition of gay adoption in order to stimulate the increase in adoption. Growing with two parents, regardless of sex, would be more beneficial than growing up in an impoverished home with a single parent.

""Most children in the United States do not live with two married parents. In fact, according to the 2000 census, only 24% homes were composed of a married mother and father with children living at home. The Florida court argues that children are better off raised in a two-parent heterosexual household. In fact, scientific studies have shown that children who grow up in one or two-parent gay or lesbian households fare just as well emotionally and socially as children whose parents are heterosexual. Studies have shown that children are more influenced by their interactions with their parents, than by their sexual orientation. With this in mind, the American Association of Pediatrics supports gay and lesbian couples adopting children."

""There is no legal reason why gays and lesbians should be denied the right to adopt children. The law only hurts children waiting to be adopted and deprives loving parents who would care for these children."

http://lesbianlife.about.com...

"Many lesbians and gay men are parents; others wish to be parents. In the 2000 U.S. Census, 33 percent of female same-sex couple households and 22 percent of male same-sex couple households reported at least one child under the age of 18 living in the home. Although comparable data are not available, many single lesbians and gay men are also parents, and many same-sex couples are part-time parents to children whose primary residence is elsewhere.

As the social visibility and legal status of lesbian and gay parents have increased, some people have raised concerns about the well-being of children in these families. Most of these questions are based on negative stereotypes about lesbians and gay men. The majority of research on this topic asks whether children raised by lesbian and gay parents are at a disadvantage when compared to children reaised(sic) by heterosexual parents. The most common questions and answers to them are these:
Do children of lesbian and gay parents have more problems with sexual identity than do children of heterosexual parents? For instance, do these children develop problems in gender identity and/or in gender role behavior? The answer from research is clear: sexual and gender identities (including gender identity, gender-role behavior, and sexual orientation) develop in much the same way among children of lesbian mothers as they do among children of heterosexual parents. Few studies are available regarding children of gay fathers.

Do children raised by lesbian or gay parents have problems in personal development in areas other than sexual identity? For example, are the children of lesbian or gay parents more vulnerable to mental breakdown, do they have more behavior problems or are they less psychologically healthy than other children? Again, studies of personality, self-concept and behavior problems show few differences between children of lesbian mothers and children of heterosexual parents. Few studies are available regarding children of gay fathers.

Are children of lesbian and gay parents likely to have problems with social relationships? For example, will they be teased or otherwise mistreated by their peers? Once more, evidence indicates that children of lesbian and gay parents have normal social relationships with their peers and adults. The picture that emerges from this research shows that children of gay and lesbian parents enjoy a social life that is typical of their age group in terms of involvement with peers, parents, family members and friends.

Are these children more likely to be sexually abused by a parent or by a parent"s friends or acquaintances? There is no scientific support for fears about children of lesbian or gay parents being sexually abused by their parents or their parents" gay, lesbian or bisexual friends or acquaintances.

In summary, social science has shown that the concerns often raised about children of lesbian and gay parents " concerns that are generally grounded in prejudice against and stereotypes about gay people " are unfounded. Overall, the research indicates that the children of lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from the children of heterosexual parents in their development, adjustment or overall well-being."

http://www.apa.org...

3) While a minority, Homosexuality is a natural orientation that has merit.

-Many view homosexuality as an unnatural practice that is distorting what nature (or god) intended. The fact of the matter is that homosexuality flourishes in the animal kingdom as an integral and vital aspect of many species.

"One fundamental premise in social debates has been that homosexuality is unnatural. This premise is wrong. Homosexuality is both common and highly essential in the lives of a number of species," explains Petter Boeckman, who is the academic advisor for the "Against Nature's Order?" exhibition.

Homosexual behaviour(sic) has been observed in 1,500 animal species.

"We're talking about everything from mammals to crabs and worms. The actual number is of course much higher. Among some animals homosexual behavior is rare, some having sex with the same gender only a part of their life, while other animals, such as the dwarf chimpanzee, homosexuality is practiced throughout their lives."

Animals that live a completely homosexual life can also be found. This occurs especially among birds that will pair with one partner for life, which is the case with geese and ducks. Four to five percent of the couples are homosexual. Single females will lay eggs in a homosexual pair's nest. It has been observced(sic) that the homosexual couple are often better at raising the young than heterosexual couples.

http://www.news-medical.net...

-If god does exist then he obviously is not concerned with other species being homosexual, because it is rampant in all corners of the world and in a large portion of the animal kingdom.

4) Homophobia is detrimental to any nation that condones such a practice.

-Homophobia is continually perpetuated by stereotypes and unfamiliarity with the nature of sexual orientation. Homosexuality is not a disease, it cannot be eradicated with a vaccine. By verbally assaulting an individual based on characteristics that cannot be altered, you are psychologically damaging the individual. The action in the previous statement leads to an increased chance of suicide, alcohol abuse, and a myriad of issues that could have been avoided.

"Recently published as a doctoral thesis in clinical psychology, this investigation examined environmental risks and protective factors that counterbalanced them in LGB youth. "Compared to their heterosexual peers, suicide rates are up to 14 times higher among lesbian, gay and bisexual high school and college students," says Michael Benibgui, who led this investigation as part of his PhD thesis at Concordia's Department of Psychology and Centre for Research in Human Development."

"Depression and anxiety are widespread," he continues. "To learn why this occurs, we studied the physiological impact of homophobic social environments on a group of healthy young LGB adults."

http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Because I am running out of room I am forced to end my arguments here. I look forward to hearing my opponent's arguments and again thank him for taking part in my debate.
Inspired

Con

Thank you for that. Your argument was extremely well written and thorough, and took quite some time to go through. Although it seemed as though you pulled quotes out of news articles more than give your own opinion. It is obvious to the reader that this is a topic that is something you care a great deal about.

For my response, I would first like to present the points listed in my response, and then pull some quotes from my opponent's argument and answer them.

The Bible is against homosexuality

For centuries, the Bible has been a foundation for the morality and well being of mankind. Many people consider the Bible in error when it refers to homosexuality and say this automatically makes it unreliable. I beg to differ. Just because you don't believe what the Bible has to say doesn't make the Bible wrong. The Scriptures have stood the test of time through history, science, and prophecy. The following link is a website containing the seven references to homosexuality listed in the Bible. I'm going to use this list to shorten my response.

http://www.christianbiblereference.org...

Marriage ought to be between a man and a woman

This point ties into my next point being that homosexuality is against the natural order. Natural marriage has always been between a man and a woman. If a homosexual couple were to adopt a child (which I'm glad you mentioned in your argument) it would deny that child a father figure or a mother figure. That child will never have a role model to look after. The same would go for any home that is not in the natural order it should be (single mother, late adoption, etc.). I will save what you said about this for after my main points.

Homosexuality is against nature

"14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)" Romans 2:14-15

"Natural law’s most elementary precept is that “good is to be done and pursued, and evil is to be avoided.” By his natural reason, man can perceive what is morally good or bad for him. Thus, he can know the end or purpose of each of his acts and how it is morally wrong to transform the means that help him accomplish an act into the act’s purpose.

Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality.

Being rooted in human nature, natural law is universal and immutable. It applies to the entire human race, equally. It commands and forbids consistently, everywhere and always."

I will mention this after my main points as well, but the fact that you bring animals into the picture is absolutely absurd. What do animals have to do with the business of humans? There is a noticeable difference, mainly being that man has society, art, culture, language, wears clothes, has creativity, has a spirit, and most importantly has a conscience. Animals have nothing to do us. I'll discuss this later.

http://www.tfpstudentaction.org...



There is a difference between religion and God's law

I bring this point up because there are some religious groups out there that accept homosexuality. They are referred to as LGBT-affirming. Their whole purpose is to deliberately throw away the God's law and accept homosexuality. This is outrightly wrong. God's law is perfect and cannot be altered. Any church in their right practice as following the Bible simply cannot condone homosexuality as ok. So basically, if any group that claims to follow God accepts homosexuality, they are wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org...


Homophobia

I noticed you used the term homophobic quite a bit in your argument. I'm not exactly sure what you were trying to accomplish by doing that. Dictionary.com defines homophobia as an "unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals or homosexuality." I believe people who support homosexuality use this term to describe those who disagree with or "hate" on homosexuals and it needs to stop. Homophobia is used flippantly, as if those who don't support have some sort of mental disorder. I personally do not agree with homosexuality, does that make me a homophobe? Because I'm certainly not afraid or have antipathy. I'm sure there are people out there who do have homophobia, but they are far and few.

http://dictionary.reference.com...


Ok, now on to the quotes.

"-The perception of homosexuals is that they are a vector for AIDS, syphilis, gonorrhea, etc.
-The fact of the matter is that all STDs can be transmitted regardless of sexuality to one's partner depending on the sexual act committed."

Ok, first of all you are indeed correct. STDs can be transmitted regardless of sexuality. In my opinion, the best form of safe sex is no sex (abstinence). The reason STDs run so rampantly today is because morality has degraded so much in our society and people sleep with whoever they want to. That again is yet another debate by itself. Secondly, are you aware that the first known case of HIV/AIDS was discovered in 1981 and was carried by...five homosexual men? As far as I know this was the first known case and this could have been the start of HIV in America. Because of homosexuals? I don't know, but this is my assumption. This timeline describes it well: http://aids.gov...;


" The reality is that homosexuals have the same capacity to raise a child as heterosexuals. In fact, it would be beneficial to society if adoption laws in various states ended their prohibition of gay adoption in order to stimulate the increase in adoption. Growing with two parents, regardless of sex, would be more beneficial than growing up in an impoverished home with a single parent."

To a point I do agree with you. I wouldn't say it is more beneficial to grow up with two gay parents though. I would say an impoverished home with a single parent is equivalent to a gay adoption. However, if this prohibition would be lifted, I would most likely support it. If this got more kids out of adoption homes and into families, I would support it. The main idea behind why I strongly disagree is because these kids are not growing up in the correct environment. It is certainly not a Christian home, and society has benefited from Christians with morals (yes, that is my opinion). History has pretty much proved that already.


"In fact, according to the 2000 census, only 24% homes were composed of a married mother and father with children living at home. The Florida court argues that children are better off raised in a two-parent heterosexual household. In fact, scientific studies have shown that children who grow up in one or two-parent gay or lesbian households fare just as well emotionally and socially as children whose parents are heterosexual."

This is odd because I'm quoting your quotation. Although there are some serious flaws with these few statements, and eventually with the article in whole because of those statements. One, this article failed to show the evidence behind those "scientific studies". This is merely the opinion of the news journalist! And this most likely single individual is arguing with a state court? I wouldn't call that science until you show me the evidence behind it.


"Many view homosexuality as an unnatural practice that is distorting what nature (or god) intended. The fact of the matter is that homosexuality flourishes in the animal kingdom as an integral and vital aspect of many species."

"If god does exist then he obviously is not concerned with other species being homosexual, ..."

Again, we've already covered that above in my main points. I wouldn't call this behavior homosexuality in animals, merely the instinct of dominance and submission. More at this website link which summarizes my viewpoint nicely:
http://www.probe.org...;


"Homophobia is continually perpetuated by stereotypes and unfamiliarity with the nature of sexual orientation. Homosexuality is not a disease, it cannot be eradicated with a vaccine. By verbally assaulting an individual based on characteristics that cannot be altered, you are psychologically damaging the individual. The action in the previous statement leads to an increased chance of suicide, alcohol abuse, and a myriad of issues that could have been avoided."

I must say if this is true it is truly tragic. Simply because someone has a different lifestyle and sexual preference they are being bullied!? That is absolutely wrong. And you are right, they are indeed damaging the individual psychologically. I only wish people wouldn't be so ignorant about such matters as to physically or verbally assault those who a different. I have the utmost respect for all individuals, gay or otherwise. I follow after Jesus who loved the sinner but hated the sin they had.

I am amazed I managed to fill all 10,000 characters. Many thanks to such a wonderful opponent who has brought up an awesome debate. Ultimately, it is up to the "voters" to decide on who wins this debate, but in the end, God's law is always right and will continue to be after you or me are gone. Dear reader, I encourage you to find a Bible and spend some serious time reading and considering what it says. Its been around a lot longer than you or I have been.

Thanks again!

- Inspired
Debate Round No. 2
AndrewB686

Pro

Thanks as well to my opponent for providing a thorough and detailed argument, much enjoyment was obtained from reading it.

That being said, this round is strictly for rebuttals, no new arguments may be introduced.

1) "The Bible is against homosexuality"

-As my opponent is already aware of, I am an atheist. I do not agree with your first paragraph that states the Bible is inerrant. I would, in a different argument, attempt to refute such claims; however, I will remain on topic and only refer to your arguments that strictly relate to homosexuality.

2) "Marriage ought to be between a man and a woman"

-You make the assertion that "If a homosexual couple were to adopt a child it would deny that child a father figure or a mother figure. That child will never have a role model to look after."

-I strongly disagree. The sex of your parents is irrelevant, it is the quality and effort that is exerted into the act of parenting that matters. Homosexual men and lesbian women possess the same nurturing capabilities as heterosexuals, their maternal and paternal instincts are not null and void simply because they have a different orientation.

"The scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has been generally consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents,[3][4][5] despite the reality that considerable legal discrimination and inequity remain significant challenges for these families.[4] Major associations of mental health professionals in the U.S., Canada, and Australia, have not identified credible empirical research that suggests otherwise.[5][6][7][8][9] Literature indicates that parents" financial, psychological and physical well-being is enhanced by marriage and that children benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally-recognized union.[5][6][22][23] Statistics show that home and childcare activities in homosexual households are more evenly split between the two rather than having specific gender roles,[24] and that there were no differences in the interests and hobbies of children with homosexual or heterosexual parents.[25]"

https://en.wikipedia.org...

3) "Homosexuality is against nature"

-Again, the majority of your argument has nothing to do with homosexuality. The first 4 paragraphs do not reference the term homosexuality whatsoever. I will refrain from refuting the aforementioned argument because it does not pertain to the topic. I also am not as well versed in the morality that is espoused by the bible, nor do I believe the bible is a viable source of knowledge concerning natural or sexual law.

-In the last paragraph, however, you make the claim:

"What do animals have to do with the business of humans? There is a noticeable difference, mainly being that man has society, art, culture, language, wears clothes, has creativity, has a spirit, and most importantly has a conscience. Animals have nothing to do us."

-I wholeheartedly disagree with you. Other species of animals posses society, art, culture, and creativity. I do not believe any species has a soul, that being the reason I left it out of the list. Every animal also has a language, evidenced by clicks, chirps, squeaks, etc., these noises are not just incoherent dribble, they are a means of communication.

http://news.sciencemag.org...
http://www.wired.com...
http://www.npr.org...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

-Those are a few of my favorite articles that elaborate on the fascinating ability of animals, an ability that extends far beyond the conventional notion of "animal instinct".

4) There is a difference between religion and God's law

-Again, the mentioning of god's law and church's identification of homosexuality as acceptable is beyond the scope of the debate. The chasm that apparently exists between god and man is something that belongs in another debate, while interesting, it does not correlate to anything empirical within the range of the topic.

5) Homophobia

-I never considered you to be a homophobe, nor did I accuse any individual in particular of being a homophone. Every source I referenced and my preceding argument outlines how rampant homophobia actually is in society. I will politely reiterate it.

"Recently published as a doctoral thesis in clinical psychology, this investigation examined environmental risks and protective factors that counterbalanced them in LGB youth. "Compared to their heterosexual peers, suicide rates are up to 14 times higher among lesbian, gay and bisexual high school and college students," says Michael Benibgui, who led this investigation as part of his PhD thesis at Concordia's Department of Psychology and Centre for Research in Human Development."

"Depression and anxiety are widespread," he continues. "To learn why this occurs, we studied the physiological impact of homophobic social environments on a group of healthy young LGB adults."

http://www.sciencedaily.com......

-The argument above that I used in the previous round articulates the negative effects of homophobia on homosexuals. Discrimination and hate is unfortunately quite prevalent in contemporary society.

6) Quotes from my arguments

-Yes, I am aware that HIV/AIDS was first reported in 1981 and was carried by five homosexual men. This does not mean that they are the cause of this deadly disease, they were merely the first to contract it. The true source has yet to be found.

-In referring to homosexual adoption, you supported a majority of what I said. The last statement, however, I believe is false. While I am an atheist, my mother is a Christian and she has informed me that the church she attends has LGBT attendees who teach their adopted children the word of god. Anecdotal, yes, but it does allude to the possibility that homosexuality and Christianity may not be mutually exclusive.

-The remainder of what you quoted from me I have already addressed in a previous rebuttal.
-Thank you for once again for taking part in this debate and providing me with some material to ponder over concerning this highly important topic. Also, your suggestion to read the bible and ruminating over its messages has been taken into consideration.

-Best of luck

-AndrewB686
Inspired

Con

I don't believe my opponent had the right idea behind my claim of animals and humans being different. I would like to rephrase it in a better way if possible. There is no doubt that animals have communication skills, and some animals are downright clever (wolves while hunting, etc.) I believe this is what my opponent meant by creativity. My point was that animals are distinctly different from humans. You don't see animals with clothes. You don't see them constructing a building, they rely on instinct for survival. This is a huge diversion from my main point though. Animal "homosexuality" and human homosexuality are two completely different concepts and my opponent is attempting to combine them. As stated in the link I provided,

"Same-sex behavior DOES exist in the animal kingdom, for a number of reasons. Usually, it's either playful antics, or dominance behavior to assert hierarchy. For one male to mount, or attempt to mount, another male is a very powerful way to communicate his higher position in the "pecking order" of the community. But if you bring in a female in heat, suddenly the male-male behavior is abandoned in favor of the female."

In this case, it has nothing to do with sexual pleasure. For humans it is the complete opposite. That was the point I was trying to make.

http://www.probe.org...

"You make the assertion that "If a homosexual couple were to adopt a child it would deny that child a father figure or a mother figure. That child will never have a role model to look after."

That is the assertion I am making. It is commonly known that homosexual or lesbian couple do behave differently than a "straight" couple. What is this child to think? That's the way they are supposed to act too. Statistics may say otherwise, but then again statistics can be altered to say just about anything the interviewer wants.

"Literature indicates that parents" financial, psychological and physical well-being is enhanced by marriage and that children benefit from being raised by two parents within a legally-recognized union."

A legally-recognized union does not necessarily mean it is a right union. I've said it before and I'll repeat myself, since the beginning of time, a marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Just because society attempts to redefine humanity doesn't make it right.

Regarding my homosexuality being against nature. I believe I had a typo in that section and did not write out how that point applied to the topic.

"Any situation which institutionalizes the circumvention of the purpose of the sexual act violates natural law and the objective norm of morality." This actually was referring to homosexuality, I just neglected to apply it so I apologize for that. The sexual act of homosexuality violates the natural order in which humans procreate. If homosexuals became a majority, the human race would eventually die out. Although this brings up artificial insemination, etc. That was the basic idea of what I was trying to say, although poorly phrased.

Regarding homophobia. I realize my opponent was not referring to myself as a homophobe. I was using myself as an example of how homophobia is greatly exaggerated in today's society. I believe my opponent has the incorrect assumption that homophobia is rampant among our population. This is not true. People may not accept others because the are different, but that doesn't make them fearful of it. The second part of my opponent's phrase was that homosexuals are being abused both physically and verbally. To that I completely concur. Abuse of anyone in any form is completely wrong.

"I am aware that HIV/AIDS was first reported in 1981 and was carried by five homosexual men. This does not mean that they are the cause of this deadly disease, they were merely the first to contract it. The true source has yet to be found."

Yes, but why were they the first to contract it? Because of the sexual acts they did to contract it. I am not claiming they were the cause of HIV, although they might be. I am merely making assumptions in this area, there is not proof of anything. If the true source (which is currently claimed to be Africa? What?) is not found, and these men were the first to contract it, then where else could it have started?

"In referring to homosexual adoption, you supported a majority of what I said. The last statement, however, I believe is false. While I am an atheist, my mother is a Christian and she has informed me that the church she attends has LGBT attendees who teach their adopted children the word of god. Anecdotal, yes, but it does allude to the possibility that homosexuality and Christianity may not be mutually exclusive."

As mentioned before in my argument, I don't support religious LGBT groups. They clearly violate what the Bible says about homosexuality. That's all I have to say about that.

In conclusion, I would like to bring up a comment that was made recently on this debate. I quote from ADreamofLiberty

"The truth value of their resolution depends heavily on it.

If it means permit homosexuality of course.

If it means no one is bothered by it, that's not really possible; and if it was possible to alter these gut instincts wouldn't the ideal be curing homosexuality (and all other deviants)?"

I could not have said it better myself. I apologize in advance if the following statements were not what the author intended.

They bring up an interesting point that people are bothered by homosexuality and they have "gut instincts". Why is this? I explain these feelings as your conscience. If people know this is wrong, then why justify it? Stand up for what is right, what other people think of you doesn't really matter...unless you're running for president.

The truth value has everything to do with this. I would like to ask you, what if I'm right? In a short answer, if I'm right I have nothing to lose. If my opponent is wrong, he has everything to lose. If homosexuality indeed is a sin convicted by the Bible, that means there is a God. If there is a God, that means He does look into the affairs of men and He does judge sin. God doesn't judge you based on your good works, He bases it on if you have believed on Him or not. This is the main reason I have encouraged you to read the Bible. It contains the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ after He died on the cross to save us from sin. That is the good news. This isn't a religious bias, it is simply and clearly what the Bible states. I encourage you to base your life on Biblical absolutes.

Thank you for your time and also for your patience as you read and consider.
Debate Round No. 3
AndrewB686

Pro

This final round is for closing statements and conclusions, no new arguments or rebuttals may be introduced.

-In conclusion, I will reiterate and summarize my arguments as to why homosexuality should be accepted by humanity.

1) Homosexuality is a viable lifestyle due to the fact that the possibility exists for heterosexuals to contract a venereal disease.
-Homosexuality is not a vector, instead I proposed that diseases are the result of acts that do not depend on the partner.

2) Homosexuals have the ability to raise an adopted child.
-No decrease in the capacity to raise or nurture a child.
-Maternal or paternal instinct is still present.
- Greater benefit to the child than being raised by incompetent single parent.

3) While a minority, homosexuality is a natural orientation that has merit.
-Prevalent in the animal kingdom.
-Is not against the laws of nature or against the wishes of a deity (at least in the animal kingdom).

4) Homophobia is detrimental to any nation that condones such a practice.
-Psychological damage is the result of repeated verbal or physical abuse in the form of bullying.
-Leads to increase in suicide and depression amongst homosexual youth.

That concludes my part of the debate. Once again thanks to my opponent for participating in this informative debate on a very crucial topic.

Best of luck to you and may the voters cast their votes in an unbiased and objective manner.
Inspired

Con

In conclusion, I would like to help you understand why I stand where I stand on the gay rights issue. I would also like to summarize my main points.

The reason I am against homosexuality is not because of any opinion I created myself. The arguments I have given have a solid foundation in the Bible. I am not the first and I do hope not the last to have this foundation in the Bible. Now for my conclusion.

The Bible is against homosexuality
-As stated in the debate, the Bible is a solid foundation for life and always will be as long as men choose to follow it.

Marriage ought to be between a man and a woman
-Homosexuality violates natural law
-Marriage has always been between men and women

There is a difference between religion and God's law
-Man has set up religion, God has established a relationship
-Some religious groups attempt to accept gays, this is not right.

The term homophobia is exaggerated in today's society
-Homophobia is defined as the fear of homosexuals, which does not describe the majority of people
- Homophobia does exist, but it does not affect the majority of people as pro-homosexuals describe it to be

I would like to especially thank the readers for taking the time to read through this debate. Thanks to my opponent for taking a stand in what he believes in. As the old saying goes, stand for something or you'll fall for anything. This certainly does not describe him (or me I trust). He presented a clear and logical argument, and most of all he was polite in stating his opinion, a quality of which I find to be rare these days.

I would like to remind the reader that it is not for you or I to decide if homosexuality is ok or not, ultimately it is God's law and the Bible that truly matter. Take some time and read a good KJV Bible, you will uncover the truths it holds. Thanks again, and please vote! Your vote does matter.

-Inspired
Debate Round No. 4
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DudeStop 3 years ago
DudeStop
How can you not accept gays? You don't believe in them? What if I said. I was gay, am I lying? Regardless of what you believe you cannot deny that their are people who are gay, meaning you have no point unless you are denying that they actually feel attraction to the same sex, which is ridiculous...
Posted by Schoolarrow 3 years ago
Schoolarrow
Homeosexuality is a lifestyle that I personally don't agree on since man and woman were made to live together and reproduce according to the Bible, and if you're not a Christian, then, man and woman should still continue to live and reproduce together just like their ancestors have done, especially including mammals, according to evolution. Not an evolutionist? No worries...tell me another belief that support homosexuality besides the curiosity of sinful men and women, deciding whatever their minds lead them, causing them to act like animals.
Posted by TG2333 3 years ago
TG2333
i don't really care about a person who was born gay( if thats true) but if a straight person turned into a gay person then i would care
Posted by TG2333 3 years ago
TG2333
i don't really care about a person who was born gay( if thats true) but if a straight person turned into a gay person then i would care
Posted by briantheliberal 3 years ago
briantheliberal
The Bible isn't even valid. Using the Bible to justify being against homosexuality is ridiculous and automatically makes your argument irrelevant. If you believe homosexuality is wrong, that premise must be based on a secular argument for it to even apply to EVERYONE in society, not just Christians or religious people.

The Bible condones slavery, misogyny, murder, rape, incest, is full of hypocrisy, genocide and contradiction. How do you expect people who aren't Christian to take your argument seriously if that's all you have? I don't need mythology or religious scripture. I prefer actual evidence and logic based arguments on the topic.
Posted by InVinoVeritas 3 years ago
InVinoVeritas
"For centuries, the Bible has been a foundation for the morality and well being of mankind. Many people consider the Bible in error when it refers to homosexuality and say this automatically makes it unreliable. I beg to differ. Just because you don't believe what the Bible has to say doesn't make the Bible wrong."

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHA
Posted by AndrewB686 3 years ago
AndrewB686
With all due respect to con, after reading through the debate again, no where in his argument does he refute my claim that homosexuality in animals is committed for the intended purpose of pleasure, as well for practical purposes. You claim he made the argument that they prefer heterosexual sex? That was never mentioned.
Posted by AndrewB686 3 years ago
AndrewB686
Please, if you will, clarify your position @GarretKadeDupre.
Posted by Inspired 3 years ago
Inspired
Yes, I'm confused by that as well.
Posted by AndrewB686 3 years ago
AndrewB686
@GarretKadeDupre: If you say I refuted con's arguments...why did you award him the points for arguments?
12 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by funwiththoughts 3 years ago
funwiththoughts
AndrewB686InspiredTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con's arguments were almost entirely based around the Bible, which is not a valid argument to an atheist such as myself or the Pro. Con also agreed with practically all of Pro's arguments, and the few he actually did disagree with he pretty much admitted was just opinion-based.
Vote Placed by Mockery 3 years ago
Mockery
AndrewB686InspiredTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I think Con messed up bringing the Bible into the argument.
Vote Placed by briantheliberal 3 years ago
briantheliberal
AndrewB686InspiredTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro's arguments were clearly more convincing, factual and better constructed than Con. However on both sides, spelling and grammar were equal. I gave sources to Pro because his were the only accredited ones throughout the entire debate. The Bible, like all forms of religious doctrine, is not relevant to anyone who is not a Christian. Even within the Christian religion, there are many different interpretations of what the Bible says and what certain Christians believe. If something can be interpreted differently and lacks evidence to support it, it is not a valid source. The Bible is based on faith, not fact. I also gave conduct to Pro, simply because Con's arguments were clearly biased and many of his points were not factual. For example the notion that "marriage has always been between a man and a woman" is simply not true. Con also misinterpreted words and definitions. You cannot redefine something that is already defined because you do not agree with the definition. That is biased.
Vote Placed by austinlaam 3 years ago
austinlaam
AndrewB686InspiredTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision:
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 3 years ago
RoyLatham
AndrewB686InspiredTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: The resolution is adequately defined by the context of opening argument which defines what "accepted" means. The problem with religious definition of morality is that it depends upon which religion is referenced. Even within Christianity there is substantial disagreement; consequently the religious arguments reduce to "it's what I choose to believe" and that's not compelling in a debate. On the individual topics it comes down to the references supporting the arguments. Pro fumbled a bit at the start, but got to valid sources like the expert opinions of the APA and a Wikipedia article that gave extensive references to scientific literature. Con mainly references other opinions, and those opinion sources did in turn provide backup from scientific literature. For example, if Con could provide references that homosexuality parenting was inferior, that would be important; but he could not. Pro could have done better arguing what is "normal," but Con didn't cash it on that.
Vote Placed by Beverlee 3 years ago
Beverlee
AndrewB686InspiredTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: I found the religious arguments to be non sequitur to the debate, given the OA, which never mentions this aspect. The religious injunctions may or may not have merit, but still do not challenge the R1 assertions. A point could have been made that states that religious persons should not be asked to accept homosexuality, but I'm not sure if this would have been able to be worked in, either. Con concedes that homophobia is a negative for a society, which I saw as decisive here. Sourcing by Pro was more convincing, as Con used too many religious sources that I found to be heavily biased.
Vote Placed by tylergraham95 3 years ago
tylergraham95
AndrewB686InspiredTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources for Con were primarily religious and therefore unproven. Furthermore, con bases his argument largely in Christianity, and as the majority of Humanity is not christian, renders this point irrelevant to the resolution at hand. Pro makes the point of the number of species that engage in homosexual activities to justify the naturalization of homosexuality and Con left this relatively un-rebutted. Con makes a strange move in attempting to discredit statistics in general without any specific relevance to the statistic at hand. Overall, pro argument was based in a more secular morality and in statistical statements, whereas Cons argument was based on personal interpretations of morality that is Unique to one form of religion.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 3 years ago
Ragnar
AndrewB686InspiredTied
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: Too much bias to vote fairly (therefore casting a null vote). However good job to both sides!
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
AndrewB686InspiredTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources to Con because of his federal government source; Pro's journalist sources and Cons Bible sources cancelled each other out. Both sides agreed (at least implicitly) that homosexuality is far more closely associated with STDs than heterosexuality. Also, Pro defeated Con's arguments about homosexual animals by explaining that supposed homosexual animal behavior wasn't related to sexual pleasure, and they actually preferred heterosexual sex.
Vote Placed by bladerunner060 3 years ago
bladerunner060
AndrewB686InspiredTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.