The Instigator
Abraham665
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Marauder
Con (against)
Winning
15 Points

Homosexuals should be accepted and respected by the society

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 6 votes the winner is...
Marauder
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/7/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 10,795 times Debate No: 26976
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (6)

 

Abraham665

Pro

Rules :
1. No semantics
2. No trolling
3. No spamming
4. No profanities

The first round is for acceptance only. The debate will start in the second round. If you think that homosexuals should not be accepted or respected by the society, feel free to join.
Marauder

Con

I accapt this debate but only on the condition that for this debate we define the meaning being "homosexual" in the resolution as:

the homosexual lifestyle choice

and not as:

people who choose the lifestyle choice.

and most certainly not as:

a genitic race called homosexuals


with that understanding set we can have this debate. all the christians who are against the lifestyle choice still will tell you "love the sinner, hate the sin" so as an individual, weather larry identifies as a homosexual or a heterosexual, all can still respect larry's skill as a archetect or a firefighter or whatever.

the only thing contested is respect and acknoledgement of the homosexual acts themselves being considered socially no longer taboo, bad, sinful, wrong, or horrible even. This here is what I contend should not be accepted and respected in sociaty, much like smoking should, while still remaining free to do it, should not be accapted or respected as something to partake in in socioty. Smoking is not cool, it should stay that way, and the same goes for homosexual acts

if my opponenet does not accapt these terms I set in round 1 he forfiets the debate to me.
Debate Round No. 1
Abraham665

Pro

I accept those terms and thank you for accepting this debate.

I think that homosexuals should be accepted and respected in the society because :

Point 1 : They are people too

Yes, homosexuals are a little different from us. But they are human too. They are entitled to every singles rights that heterosexuals have. They have the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Homosexuality is not a disease. It is not a disorder. It is not a sin. It is not a crime. It is not a free choice. It is natural. It is normal.[1] In my opinion, harassing homosexuals is racist.

Point 2 : They don't cause any harm in the society

Homosexuals won't cause harm in the society. Except if they are evil, and most of them are not. There are many people that even made great contributions to the society. For example, Macedonian king Alexander, Russian Mathematician Pavel Alexandrov, American poet John Ashbery, British choreographer Sir Frederick Ashton, New Jersey governor James McGreevey, and comedian Ellen DeGeneres.[1]

Now Con could present his case.

1. http://www.madarong.com...
Marauder

Con


Thank you for accepting my terms.


Rebuttal to point #1 (and point #2 really):


Both of your points are null and void as per the terms you accepted that I gave in round 2


If you will scroll up and recall, one of my terms was that debate was not over respecting an individual that makes the choice which both of your arguments are for. You can respect me as an individual for all the good and charity I might do in society, or as a worker in whatever my field of work is, but that does not mean you should respect my decision to….for example lie when it is convenient for me to do so.


As I said in the first round the position of all Christians against homosexuality is and always has been “love the sinner, hate the sin” Loving and respecting the sinner, does not under any circumstances mean loving and respecting the sin


Yes, Ellen is a great comedian, and I loved her judgments on American idol, and she was fantastic in ‘finding nemo’. But being good and respectable in some fields of ones life does not make by default all other fields of activities in your life good or respectable. What she does in bed with other women is still a sin. Just cause Willy Nelson is a respectable musician does not mean that his smoking weed is a respectable act. Just because David Petraeus has been a great General and very respectable in serving his country and should be thanked for all he has done fighting terrorism, this does not by any stretch of the logic you have been advocating make cheating on your wife okay or respectable.


Natural:


You make mention of the fact that the act is natural as if this should mean that it cannot be sin. This is a grievous fallacy. I point you back to think about the Generals situation. Do you think when he cheated on his wife with his biographer that the act was not “natural”? Of course it was. All sin is natural. Would you contest that if I came to your house and murdered you that it would be a sin. Probably not, it would be a sin. Could you ever hope to make a sane case though that the murder would be unnatural though? You could not. Murder is just as natural as any other sin, animals will kill each other all the time, not even for food reasons always. You point about the naturalness of the act is completely irrelevant to making your case that homosexual acts should be accepted and respected.



I await my opponents response


Debate Round No. 2
Abraham665

Pro

First, I want to apologize to Con for breaking the terms. I really hope that he would forgive me for this inconvenience. I misunderstood the terms.

Now, I will make my argument :

Homosexuality is not a sin

It is natural if we are born with black skin. But it's not a sin. Being gay is not a sin. Sins always have a negative impact on other people, like stealing, murder, or cheating. I don't see the bad in homosexuality. Homosexuality is actually the same as heterosexuality, just man with man or woman with woman. And even if the bible says that it is sin. Is the bible a reliable source. How do we know what does God think about homosexuality?

No good reasons to not accepting and respecting homosexuality

Some may say that homosexuality is different. Some may say that the bible does not approve it and declare it as not immoral. Let me tell you, handicaps were used to be called sin by people and they used to hate them. But Jesus heal them and make a close bond with them. So I don't think there are any good reasons for people to not accepting and respecting homosexuality.

Thank you.
Marauder

Con


Its natural to be born black so….:


You begin to retort homosexuality is not a sin by once again making an analogy with a natural trait like skin color. I already established though last round that Sins are natural, with arguments that you did not address or contend that the examples of sins like murder or cheating on your wife with your biographer. You did not oppose my point that those bad things are natural acts and thus left my point to stand that the naturalness of homosexual acts does not make them good.


In addition being black is not comparable to ‘being a homosexual’. Being a homosexual is more comparable to ‘being an artiest’ for example. As a noun it describes a person who participates in a particular action, a verb. In the case of saying you are an artiest that would be saying you paint or something like that. In the case of saying you are a homosexual that would be saying you have or hope to one day have gay sex. Being black does not go hand in hand with a verb of any kind. So this point is fallacious.


Sins have a negative impact and I cant see any here…:


Your proposing an objectivism philosophy for morality. It might interest you to know that Objectivism’s founder Ayn Rand also opposed homosexuality, She said that homosexuality is a manifestation of psychological "flaws, corruptions, errors, [and] unfortunate premises" and that it is both "immoral" and "disgusting" ("The Moratorium on Brains," Ford Hall Forum Lecture [Boston, 1971]). http://en.wikipedia.org...


She believed concerning sexuality that an woman of self-esteem wants to be ruled by a man worthy of ruling her, and a man of self-esteem wants to rule a woman worthy of ruling, and that a mix-up between these desires is signs of a corrupted lack of self esteem. In essence objectivism’s founder said homosexuality is a harm to ones self.


Perhaps you don’t consider Ayn Rand not as good an authority on objectivism as you claim to be yourself, there are other secular cases against homosexuality I have links for here http://winteryknight.wordpress.com...


http://www.robgagnon.net...


and these links are full of statistics that show why….



  1. Same-sex marriage is bad for children

  2. Same-sex marriage is bad for civil society and business

  3. Same-sex marriage is bad for public health


So no matter the angle your trying to approach this, its still an issue that we should oppose at the most, not respect at the least.


Is the bible a reliable source…:


From the angle I must personally come from, as a Christian, the bible is a very relevant source. And what it says on homosexuality there is no question as far as its concerned, new testament or old, they both speak of it as a sin and an abomination. http://www.witnessfortheworld.org... http://www.witnessfortheworld.org... Perhaps Ayn Rand, not a Christian, was on to something, seeing as she from a completely opposing paradigm to Christianity came up with the same conclusion on homosexuality.


I could if given the time and space lay out for you thorough case for why the bible is the word of God using everything I ever read Lee Stroble, C.S. Lewis, and dozens of other apologetics giants I ever read. Alas I do not have such space or time though. But rest assured, there is a large foundation all ready established before this debate began that others are familiar with to give them reason to take the bible seriously as a source.


I have not rested my case on that foundation obviously, for the sake of those who do not want to believe in the bible or in God. But I will not exclude the bibles stance on it either for the sake of those reading this debate that do treat it seriously. Some of my Christian brothers and sisters would like to think like you and believe that homosexual acts are okay and moral.


Handicaps used to be called sin….:


Your confused, being handicap was not considered a sin in biblical times, but rather an affliction related to sin. And both the new testament and the old testament tried to teach the people that this believe was not true. In the book of Job it showed how his tragedy’s were not the result of sinful actions and in the gospels it showed Jesus stating a man was handicapped to bring glory to god. But ultimately why this argument fails to make your case is all said in your final statement about the handicaps.


“Jesus would heal them”


And he would heal them because he did not want them to be handicap. If Jesus though it was respectable and good to be handicap he would have left them as they were. As it was he saw them for what they were, in need of healing, and that’s the way he would see the homosexuals, in need of healing, granted a different kind of healing. A healing that would set them free from a life of sin. And he provided the opportunity for that healing when shed his blood for not just the homosexuals, but for sinners of other kinds of horrible sins like me as well. Lets not make that sacrifice for us be done in vain by continuing to flat out embrace sin in our lives, but let us try to repent.


Debate Round No. 3
Abraham665

Pro

Thank you to my opponent.

Naturalness

The example : cheating with your wife, is bad because it really causes a negative impact on other person (wife). Homosexuals do not.

Born black

Homosexuals should be seen as an identity. Not as a verb. Because not all hope they will have gay sex. Some wants to hide it. Black skin is an identity, too.

Homosexual's negative impact

Ayn Rand said many bad things about homosexuality. But casual heterosexual sex is immoral and disgusting.

"It's a harm to one's self." Homosexuality has turned to man wanting man and women wanting women. So what you said of man wanting women and women wanting man don't have an impact in this case. What bad is a gay man has to be married to a woman because the man's parents don't agree. That's a harm to one self.

Those bad thing do not happen in all cases, some homosexuals have a happy life and just like heterosexuals.

Is bible a reliable source?

You didn't have proofs why bible is reliable. It's only your opinion. Some verses of the bible could be fiction.

Handicaps

Yes, it was considered as an affliction related to sin. But think, if the Old and New Testament were trying to tell people that handicaps is good, why won't they tell you that homosexuals are good. Handicaps and homosexuals were cursed by people. Handicaps are now accepted and respected. But homosexuals are not, maybe if the bible say that it's okay to be gay, people will accept them.

Jesus

Jesus won't heal all homosexuals (if he come back) because some homosexuals are proud being gay and don't want to be a heterosexual. Homosexuals are considered as bad as handicaps in the bible. And if Jesus wants to heal homosexuals, why didn't he?
Marauder

Con


Ladies and Gentlemen who are reading this hot topic, high emotions raising debate. I would like to end this debate with a recap of all the points me and my opponent have given back and forth, and what has not been given.


My opponent made a weak attempt last round rebut my point about naturalness not making something not a sin by default. He turned again to his objectivist argument about harm which I’ve also covered, but this still leaves my point to stand that being natural does not make it moral by default. He contended that cheating on your wife harms someone, not that it doing such was a natural act which was what that point was about so it stands.


My opponent made a weak attempt to assert being gay is like being black by simply asserting it again and asserting it was not like a verb with a reason. Is being an artist not a kind of identity? You say “I am an artist” with all the same grammatical context you say “I am an African American” or “I am a homosexual”. But “African American” does not describe an action the identified person does or is interested in doing like the others do. Saying some “don’t hope they will have gay sex” by definition means your saying they are not gay. If your more sure they are though, then you are being dishonest (or they are) about there hopes. Hiding would be for biding time until there hopes can be realized, not an alternate hope.


My opponent has defended his case with an objectivist view on morality. I have quoted the maker of the objectivist view; an authority on the logical conclusions Ayn Rands objectivist beliefs should lead to if there ever was one. My opponent’s defense was to meekly agree her statements on homosexuality were negative.


I also gave other cases besides Rands objectivist ones which rely on her views on the nature of both men and women that show harm caused in a more obvious sense than self-damage to you ‘self esteem”. I gave arguments backed by sources that were further backed by other sources if you followed those links on negative effects to family’s, society, business, and health. My opponent countered with an unexplained, unexpanded upon, and non-sourced assertion.


I explained the limited extent and use I was making of the bible for this debate, that its for the benefit of those who do believe in it based on pre-established reasons they have had before this debate. But I was also using secular arguments as well for the sake of those that don’t believe in it prior to the debate. I suppose I should have pointed out last round that debate tactic has a name and its called the Socratic Method. My opponent weekly continued to attack the bible though.


Then following up his attack on the bible he does not believe in or trust enough to seriously consider its word, he repeatedly makes his case trying to use the bible to support him. I least I think that’s what he was doing. I tried following his logic based on a confused understanding of handicaps social status in bible times, but his follow up last round was so strangely worded I did not understand the counter point he was trying to assert.


While I could not figure out what the coherent thought was you are trying to make about handicaps with your response last round, except that you continue to wrongly believe handicaps and homosexuals were considered the same in terms of sin in the bible. But I can easily answer your question about why Jesus didn’t ‘heal’ all gays, and I’m answering this just for you personally Pro since it’s the final round and its really not the time for new arguments made for the audiences benefit…..


Pro I referred to it as ‘healing’ to go along with your analogy you were making about handicaps. So first off if your going to accept Jesus made a point of healing the handicaps, do remember he did not heal every handicap on the planet. So the same goes for anything else like that. But what Jesus did to “heal” homosexuals he did to “heal” everyone else who has sinned as well which is everyone. That includes you, and includes me, and the rest of the world for all time. He gave his perfect life on the cross to make atonement for all of our sins of every kind, this includes homosexual sin and it includes lying and murder, and thievery, and lust of any kind. This sacrifice is a free gift and it must be taken by us by our free choice. If every homosexual accepts it then he in fact did “heal” them all.


If you are voting on this debate and are passionately Pro-homosexual acceptance, please please please consider first who between me and Abraham665 argued better when casting your vote. I am a random challenger who set the terms to this debate because Pro did not give definitions round one, I have given arguments that at the least sound coherent which my opponent has struggled with doing, and some of my arguments have been given sources and my opponents has not. If they weren’t sourced my arguments at the least had a line of reasoning to them that made them qualify as more than just a blatant weak assertion. If you ever read a debate where you should rightfully give the arguments point to the guy you disagree with it would be this one.


Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by bergeneric63 4 years ago
bergeneric63
I am sorry sir Abraham but in your final argument you stated is the bible a reliable source. How do you sound. Do you know how many scholars have found it is and can you explain how the bible was written over so much time to the point that it is exactly relevant to its own text. That was until Jesus changed the most important commandment. How are you and who do you think you are to just blow off the whole entire Christian and Catholic religion.
Posted by UltimateSkeptic 4 years ago
UltimateSkeptic
I mean no offense to anyone by this post, but this should have been a "gimme/landslide" debate win for the Pro side of this debate.
Posted by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
I have considered revising my scoring, for reasons that Muted touches upon: that Con so dominantly led the debate. I have decided so far against any revision, however.

For me, the question hinges on whether or not the concession was intentional or not. Did this admission represent his actual argument, or was it a simple misstatement? Since it was so strongly repeated, and the argument proceeded along the parameters that were defined by the concession, I have concluded that it was intentional. I do not believe that Con was aware that this was a concession, but that it was intentionally included in the arguments.

The debate, for me, did not continue past that point.
Posted by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
I agree with DeFool that Pro should have a conduct point. I do not agree, however, that Pro should get the Arguments point. This is because Con evidently led the debate with more skillful argumentation and Pro did not point out any red herrings.
Posted by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
When Con states that "all the christians who are against the lifestyle choice still will tell you "love the sinner, hate the sin" so as an individual, weather larry identifies as a homosexual or a heterosexual, all can still respect larry's skill as a archetect or a firefighter or whatever."

... this is an obvious concession to Pro's main premise, which is that "homosexuals should be respected by society." Any RDF that does not take this into account I ask to please be reconsidered; this was the functional end of the debate.

Con goes on to state that the "homosexual acts themselves" should not be accepted by society. An argument that was not relevant - this was not a contest that was intended to argue that society should accept introducing any particular sex act into public life. As was clearly stated, this was a debate that was to argue whether or not the homosexual person should be accepted and respected.

A red herring was then introduced, which irreparably derailed the discussion. I have disregarded the debate after this point as barely relevant to the resolution.

Although Con attempts to alter the definitions, he failed to do so in time. His opening statement was gibberish: "I accapt this debate but only on the condition that for this debate we define the meaning being "homosexual" in the resolution as: the homosexual lifestyle choice and not as: people who choose the lifestyle choice." And his next statement was to concede the debate to Pro. Everything after this point was unnecessary.
Posted by ockcatdaddy 4 years ago
ockcatdaddy
i am pro
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Muted 4 years ago
Muted
Abraham665MarauderTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: This debate was really led from start to end by Con. Pro did not have a chance because he did not define his terms well and accepted the proposal of Con. Which was a brilliant debating trick, by the way. (Edit: See comments)
Vote Placed by DeFool 4 years ago
DeFool
Abraham665MarauderTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: When Con states that "all the christians who are against the lifestyle choice still will tell you "love the sinner, hate the sin" so as an individual, weather larry identifies as a homosexual or a heterosexual, all can still respect larry's skill as a archetect or a firefighter or whatever." ... this is an obvious concession to Pro's main premise, which is that "homosexuals should be respected by society." Any RDF that does not take this into account I ask to please be reconsidered; this was the functional end of the debate. More in Comments.
Vote Placed by Milliarde 4 years ago
Milliarde
Abraham665MarauderTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Since Con was the one who ultimately led the debate and provided the terms used, his arguments were better and points to him for that. Other elements were tied.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
Abraham665MarauderTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:13 
Reasons for voting decision: If you accept a debate, you are bound to the rules that you accepted. If you accept, and then change the rules, and declare that the person who set up the debate forfeits if he doesn't comply with your changes, you are cheating. Conduct: Pro. Con made lots of grammar errors. Bit of a distraction there, but you could tell what he was trying to say, so, given Pro's similar (though fewer) errors, I'll call S&G a tie. Con's arguments were wacko, but Pro followed where he led, arguing about whether one religion considers homosexuality to be a sin, as opposed to arguing about the resolution. Persuasion: Con.
Vote Placed by One_Winged_Rook 4 years ago
One_Winged_Rook
Abraham665MarauderTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't think Pro ever completely responded to the "hate the sin, love the sinner" line of thinking.... his reasoning on homosexuality not being a sin was just wrong (as properly refuted by Con)
Vote Placed by AlextheYounga 4 years ago
AlextheYounga
Abraham665MarauderTied
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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Both sides made poor arguments. Pro could have gone farther to why homosexuality is not a sin, which it's really not. Pro idea is right but defended it poorly. My vote has to go to Con.