The Instigator
giuocob
Pro (for)
Losing
24 Points
The Contender
beem0r
Con (against)
Winning
46 Points

Homosexuals are perfectly justified and deserve all the rights of other people.

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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/5/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,634 times Debate No: 1371
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (24)

 

giuocob

Pro

So...gays are definitely people. Their homosexual actions have no negative impact on anyone but themselves (placing them apart from rapists and pedophiles.) Therefore, no country is morally justified in placing restrictions against any of their rights. Whoever accepts this debate must find a reason why we have a right to discriminate against gays.
beem0r

Con

First, I'd like to clarify that I only took this debate for fun, not because I actually disagree with my opponent's stance. Judge based on the arguments, not the stances.

First, I shall respond to my opponent's opening statements:

>>So...gays are definitely people.<<
That they are, though I find it irrelevant.

>>Their homosexual actions have no negative impact on anyone but themselves (placing them apart from rapists and pedophiles.)<<
This is incorrect. I've heard first-hand reports of people being intensely grossed-out or even deeply vexed by acts of homosexuality. I'd call deep vexation a negative impact. However, this alone does not suffice as a reason homosexuals should be discriminated against.

>>Therefore, no country is morally justified in placing restrictions against any of their rights.<<
Since I rebutted the preceding statement, I can ignore the therefore. I will address this issue in my arguments rather than here.

>>Whoever accepts this debate must find a reason why we have a right to discriminate against gays.<<
And that I will, to the best of my ability.

First, I need to go over some of the more general things relating to the debate, just to make sure we're on the same page.

First, a concept of why people (or other animals) have whatever rights they do:
Beings have the rights society, usually in the form of government, gives them. For example, society has decided that some beings should have the right to vote. At one time, landowning white men were considered the only ones worthy of this right. However, society changed its mind and today the criteria for the right is that the voter must be a citizen of age 18 years or older. the right to be a citizen has its own criteria, one of which is that the citizen must be Homo Sapiens.
Let's take, for instance, the age criteria for voters. The reason for this is not that persons under 18 are intrinsically unworthy of being a voter. The reason, plain and simple, is that society deems it so. Society gives people rights, and if it doesn't want to give a specific group, like those under 18 or those not of the species Homo Sapiens, a specific right, it doesn't have to.

So basically, here's my main point this round:
Beings do not inherently deserve rights. They earn rights by either being viewed as deserving of said rights by society, or by putting pressure on society to give them said rights.

As it stands now, society as a whole still does not think gays deserve such rights as marriage, ability to serve in the military, or any other rights they lack. Society now thinks the criteria for these should be:

Marriage:
Currently living, Homo Sapiens, at least one member must be a citizen, at least a certain age, not closely related, of opposite sexes. I might have left some out.

Military Service:
Currently living, citizen, age 18 or higher, at least a certain level of physical fitness, heterosexual. Again, that might not be all.

As you see, we don't get rights based on some inherentness in reality. We get them based on whether or not we fit the criteria society has made for that right. Since it is society that gives us the rights of marriage or ability to serve in the military, it is society as a whole that should decide the criteria. Society should not give rights to those who don't fit its criteria, and as it stands now, homosexuals do not fit the criteria of marriage or military service. Therefore, society should not give homosexuals these rights... UNTIL society as a whole has changed its mind on the issue.

And now, a rewrite of your opening paragraph, just to get my point across.

So...kittens are definitely living things. Their kitten-like actions have no negative impact on anyone but themselves (placing them apart from rapists and pedophiles.) Therefore, no country is morally justified in placing restrictions against any of their rights. Whoever accepts this debate must find a reason why we have a right to discriminate against kittens.

Kittens have less barely any rights. Why is this?
Debate Round No. 1
giuocob

Pro

giuocob forfeited this round.
beem0r

Con

My opponent has not addressed my claims. I fear that I will still lose, simply by virtue of the title.
Unfortunate that people so often don't finish a debate - both the readers and the debaters.
Debate Round No. 2
giuocob

Pro

giuocob forfeited this round.
beem0r

Con

This is happening too often. My opponent has been on within the past 2 days, while he had 3 days to reply. People, if you're going to make or take a debate, don't just quit. Or if you are quitting, simply get it over with and tell everyone you've forfeited.
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
I agree

I just live in SF so it seems like the vast majority here , could be much less in other places

SF = Sodom Fornicorrah

I LOVE IT ANYWAY!

the bay is the best!
Posted by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
Solarman - You assume that the lifestyle of all gay men is as you describe, but that's not the case. It is, however, more common in homosexuals to act recklessly in those regards, but an association does not imply causation. Homosexuality isn't the self-imposed death sentence, reckless behavior is.
Posted by mjg283 9 years ago
mjg283
The problem is that the pro position assumes that homosexuals do not currently have "all the rights of other people." At least for the most part, homosexuals have the same rights and are subject to the same prohibitions as heterosexuals are. For example, homosexuals are allowed to marry under the exact same circumstances heterosexuals are allowed to marry (no polygamy, spouse of the opposite sex, no incest, age of consent laws, etc . . . ). There's absolutely no discrimination there whatsoever.

If anything, what homosexuals desire (and I'm not saying they're wrong to desire this) is for discrimination IN THEIR FAVOR by making a special exception to the traditional terms and conditions of marriage to account for their desired relationships.

The statement was made that homosexuals are people too, and their actions have no negative impact on others. Of course, the same could be said for other groups whose desired relationships don't fit the terms and conditions of marriage, for example. Polygamists are people; so are those who desire incestuous relationships; so are minors who feel they are deeply in love with each other. All of these groups consist of people who are good and decent, and whose actions, for the most part, really don't affect others. But "marriage" is denied to all of these groups, mostly without debate. That doesn't mean they're denied rights or being discriminated against -- it means there are neutral and generally applied terms and conditions to enter a marriage that they simply do not meet.
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
Male homosexaulity is, for the most part, a self-imposed death sentence (the average life span for male homosexuals is like 45 years old)

It is apparent in the lifestyle and the choices made (ie unprotected anal sex all the time with randoms on drugs in dark clubs with AIDS and other STDS rampant)

Lesbianism is totally different- they just dont do that kind of stuff and are generally just tired of dirtball men and want to be with eachother

come to SF if you doubt what I am saying -

nonetheless, young gay men should be able to go to the bathouses and what not- this is a free country and you are allowed to make stupid decisions
Posted by Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
Forfeiting is a big NO-NO in my eyes. Add that to the fact that the instigator hardly has an opening argument, and I am persuaded to vote in favor of the contender.
Posted by Miserlou 9 years ago
Miserlou
Fair enough. But do any of society's current morals clash with any of society's rules? In many cases they have. We say that we shouldn't discriminate, yet we do against homosexuals.
Posted by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
Morals, too, are defined by society's views.
Posted by Miserlou 9 years ago
Miserlou
Con you make a tought case. Yes, society can make up whatever rules they want. I think the question is, is discrimination against gays morally sound?
24 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 11 months ago
U.n
giuocobbeem0rTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by giuocob 8 years ago
giuocob
giuocobbeem0rTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by JUDGE 8 years ago
JUDGE
giuocobbeem0rTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by THEmanlyDEBATER3 8 years ago
THEmanlyDEBATER3
giuocobbeem0rTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by josh_42 8 years ago
josh_42
giuocobbeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by bigbass3000 9 years ago
bigbass3000
giuocobbeem0rTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Kals 9 years ago
Kals
giuocobbeem0rTied
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:30 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 9 years ago
Tatarize
giuocobbeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Sanchez 9 years ago
Sanchez
giuocobbeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Chob 9 years ago
Chob
giuocobbeem0rTied
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:30