The Instigator
MyWoodenHeart
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
hamo94
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Homosexuality should be socially accepted.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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 1 vote the winner is...
hamo94
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/13/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 646 times Debate No: 61672
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (1)

 

MyWoodenHeart

Pro

Homosexuality should be socially accepted in my opinion. I hope that this discussion will be friendly.

Each debator will have 24 hours to present their case. The max limit of characters is 10,000.
hamo94

Con

Okay, I'm going to be devil's advocate here simply because while I have debated before, I am completely foreign to this program and I just want to test it out!

Now, onto the debate.

Am I right in assuming that you begin Round 2 with your arguments and then I respond with my substantive?
Debate Round No. 1
MyWoodenHeart

Pro

I was assuming you would present your arguments in round one, since you first have to prove homosexuality is something that shouldn't be socially accepted, but I can start by expecting some arguments and rebutting them before you present them.

1. It is unnatural

First of all, define natural. Most people would say that something is natural if humankind does not tinker with it. But you're going to have to explain why being unnatural is bad. You're in an air-conditioned house. Not very natural, is it? You are staring at a computer. That is nothing close to "natural".

2. Homosexuals cannot marry, because "Marriage" is between a male and a female

Well then maybe we should change the definition as our society and culture changes.

3. Their child doesn't get a female/male role model

The parent's sexual orientation does not affect the child. [1]

[1] http://www.yourtango.com...;
hamo94

Con

Technically I was under the impression that if you are assuming the 'pro' position, you start off with your arguments.

So firstly, some flaws in your case.
Social acceptance is different between allowing marriage between homosexuals. Because of the fact that this debate is centred around whether homosexuals should be 'socially' accepted, it does not hinge around marriage. One can marry another but not be socially accepted by the community. Hence, argument 2 is irrelevant and thus, invalid.

While the parents sexual orientation does not affect the child as you conveniently talked about, we do not feel that talking about how children are not affected dictates a compulsory social acceptance. Rather, we feel that this is an argument about whether children are inherently affected by homosexual parents, not about why people should accept homosexuals. Again, this argument is plainly irrelevant because it does not persuade people to accept homosexuals.

Now, onto my arguments:

1. There are significant consequences for making people 'accept' homosexuals in general. We feel that there is a large number of citizens in the world who have been against the idea of 'accepting' these people in general. We can correlate this to the people who detest sorts of food, religions, etc. These people do not like believing a certain way and we should not compel or enforce a black or white approach onto these people. We live in a generally free world when people are free to make their decisions. There should be no reason why we should force our ideas on others.
If we do, this can lead to many potential implications. These people may start riots, these people may start creating hate speech, etc. We are only going to inflame this situation further by enforcing the idea or notion that we should accept homosexuals.

2. People should have the freedom to choose whether they 'accept' homosexuals or not. Again, this can be related to whether people want to accept eating mushrooms as a regular staple or whether they want to accept watching a circus every week. No one should force this onto them or tell them 'you should eat mushrooms'. Sure, you can justify eating vegetables as healthy, but that does not necessarily give us the right to tell them that they 'should' eat something. This is giving them unnecessary social pressure to conform and there should be no reason, especially for an issue like this. If they break the law attacking homosexuals, they are still subjected to the same harshness of treatment as any other person attacking a 'non-homosexual'. There is no difference in the law.
Debate Round No. 2
MyWoodenHeart

Pro

That's all right, let's just get on with the debate.

I undestand that social acceptance is different from legalizing marriage between homosexuals, but I imagined "social acceptance" as giving homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals. If you did not correctly understand me when you agreed to this debate, then I will drop that topic for your convenience.

A reason some people may not be okay with accepting homosexual people is because those homosexuals will most likely raise a kid, and they fear that the child may lack a male/female role model. I believe it is relevant.

I think you misunderstood the whole debate after examining your arguments. I never said that anyone should be forced to accept homosexuality, I simply said that those people SHOULD accept homosexuality. I don't think you should smoke, but I also don't think you should be forced NOT to smoke. I think your arguments would be great if we were discussing if people should be forced to accept homosexuality, but we are not. I'm sorry if you were confused, you can decide to forfeit if you would like.

hamo94

Con

When you create the instance that someone 'should' accept homosexuality, while you are not forcing it onto the individual, you are actively creating a social consequence if they do not accept homosexuality.

In your words, in your particular example of smoking,
If you disregard and continue to smoke, it is undeniable that a considerable number of society LOOK DOWN upon you for smoking. It is no coincidence that many employers pass out actively on people who have nose piercings or belly piercings. They view these people as 'thugs' or people from lower socio-economic background.

So, UNLESS you are able to tell me why we should enforce an argument on why we should create active consequences for these individuals to socially accept homosexuality, your points are void.

Re-iterating my points, I wasn't confused, but you can, if you like, choose to explore my points in the context of giving people freedom 'without being judged' by members of the community.

-imagining social acceptance as giving homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals
This is flawed. YOU NEED to state this in your definition. If you do not define the topic, then I will define it for you, as I have in the beginning. My interpretations stem from your first argument, so technically you're in the wrong here.

-you can decide to forfeit if you would like
It seems quite redundant for me to forfeit when you've been orchestrating this falsely and lacking vital information which you conveniently decided to bring out as part of your final argument.

To summarise, homosexuality shouldn't be socially accepted because it creates unnecessary social implications on those who don't.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by MyWoodenHeart 2 years ago
MyWoodenHeart
Are you serious hamo94? Are you trolling me?

"So, UNLESS you are able to tell me why we should enforce an argument on why we should create active consequences for these individuals to socially accept homosexuality, your points are void."

"This is flawed. YOU NEED to state this in your definition. If you do not define the topic, then I will define it for you, as I have in the beginning. My interpretations stem from your first argument, so technically you're in the wrong here."

So because I didn't SPECIFICALLY say that I did NOT mean "force social acceptance", it allows you to "clarify" for me? I never mentioned forcing people to socially accept homosexuals, therefore we should not be discussing about that.

Yes, thinking homosexuals should be socially equal and accepted could create peer pressure to not get looked down on, but there SHOULD be peer pressure. Is it really fair to make people deny social acceptance of active murderers and rapists? Wouldn't that put PRESSURE on those who like murders and rapists to not like them any more?
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Why. If that is not what you believe. Are you not true to yourself?
Posted by MyWoodenHeart 2 years ago
MyWoodenHeart
That's not my actual opinion cheyennebodie, I was simply creating a parallel to your argument.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
wooden: if you perceive us as perverts, then you have an absolute right not to associate with us.And why did you bring the color of a man's skin into this debate. That is not a choice. All the other things you named are.

You need to take inventory of your values.
Posted by GoOrDin 2 years ago
GoOrDin
There is no way homosexuality should be socially accepted.
sex should Never be introduced to children as an okay thing. - so you can not argue fairness.
adultery, which it is, promotes rape and abduction. abduction is specifically relevant because homosexuality removes the moral boundary of adultery, reducing ti to a new low.
Adultery promotes, neglectful and ignorant relationships. and increases this aura of bad influences to abusive(including neglectful) relationships, and even goes as far as abandonment.

testosterone causes menopause. and thus introducing oral sex to the community as an okay thing is a NEGATIVE thing. Especially when speaking to children!
spilling sperm also causes a hormonal imbalance leading to poor mental health and and impotency.

anal sex is a disease. was it gonorrhea?

political injustice is founded on the world fighting religious morality.

anti-gay all day.
WIN
Posted by MyWoodenHeart 2 years ago
MyWoodenHeart
Are you suggesting that government pass a law forcing people to accept that lifestyle? That is as bad as forcing people to believe in a certain religion. If I view heterosexuals as perverts, then I should not be forced to accept them. And I have the right to keep them away from my children. On the other hand you have the right to have then influence your children. Just as I perceive heterosexuals in the same light as rapists, perverts, druggies, and niggers. I don't suggest outlawing them, just do not force me to associate with them, because I will not.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Are you suggesting that government pass a law forcing people to accept that lifestyle?That is as bad as forcing people to go to a certain religion.If I view homo's as perverted lifestyles, then I should not be forced to accept them.And I have the right to keep them away from my children. On the other hand you have the right to have then influence your children. Just as I perceive homo's in the same light as drunks and druggies , a destructive lifestyle, I don't suggest outlawing them, just do not force me to associate with them, because I will not.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
MyWoodenHearthamo94Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro, you needed a positive case. Con is right when he says that you must present a social consequence to not accepting homosexuality as a part of society. All you managed to do here was show that there is no harm to acceptance, but that's not a reason to affirm, that's simply a reason not to negate. But its Pro's burden of proof here as the affirmative arguing for a change in perception in society at large. Lacking a positive case, I default to negation, and so I vote Con.