The Instigator
anusdestoryer
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
syedemir
Con (against)
Winning
26 Points

Homosexuals should be eliminated from the world

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 4 votes the winner is...
syedemir
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/9/2013 Category: Education
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,103 times Debate No: 34625
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (3)
Votes (4)

 

anusdestoryer

Pro

Homosexuals should be eliminated from the world because
1."They eat da poo poo like ice cream"said Pastor Martin Ssempa from Uganda.
2.They insert their penis into each others anus, which is a crime against bible.
3.They are the source of aids.
Sources:"Homosexuality in Uganda" Pastor Martin Ssempa, Blackfrica, Uganda, 2005.
syedemir

Con

I accept this debate. I would like to thank my opponent. Since he has opened with his arguments, I'll present some light.

My opponent contends that homosexuals should be eliminated from the world. His points are as stated. I will rebut each and every point:-

1. The argument that Pastor Martin Ssempa argues, that the reason we should eliminate homosexuals is because they have a tendency to commit coprophilia is clearly flawed in itself. Many hetrosexual people commit coprophilia as well, and if you would like to eliminate homosexuals because some members of the homosexual community commit this act, then by that logic, we should eliminate the entire human race because some of us have a fetish for faeces.

2. He contends that homosexuality is a crime against the bible, and for this reason, homosexuals should be eliminated from the world. I would like to first start that in America, we have an ideology of seperation between church and state and for this reason, we have no right to impose our beliefs on others.

The basis of the banning of homosexuality by religious officials are in the text as follows:
18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination. (Leviticus 18:22 KJV)
20:13 "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13 KJV)

I would like to give a ridiculous set of things banned by the bible

a) Round haircuts. Leviticus 19:27 reads "You shall not round off the side-growth of your heads nor harm the edges of your beard."
b)The eating, touching and mass processing of swine. Leviticus 11:8, which is discussing pigs, reads "You shall not eat of their flesh nor touch their carcasses; they are unclean to you."
c) The Retrieval method during Sex. It's Genesis 38:9-10: "Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so when he went in to his brother's wife, he wasted his seed on the ground in order not to give offspring to his brother. But what he did was displeasing in the sight of the Lord; so He took his life also."
d) Divorce. Mark 10:11-12, "And He said to them, 'Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.'"
e) Bastards and their descendants are not allowed to join a Church. Deuteronomy 23:2 reads, "No one of illegitimate birth shall enter the assembly of the Lord; none of his descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall enter the assembly of the Lord."
f) Eating shellfish. "But whatever is in the seas and in the rivers that does not have fins and scales among all the teeming life of the water, and among all the living creatures that are in the water, they are detestable things to you."
Leviticus 11 bans a TON of animals from being eaten (it's THE basis for Kosher law); beyond shellfish and pig, it also says you can't eat camel, rock badger, rabbit, eagle, vulture, buzzard, falcon, raven, crow, ostrich, owl, seagull, hawk, pelican, stork, heron, bat, winged insects that walk on four legs unless they have joints to jump with like grasshoppers (?), bear, mole, mouse, lizard, gecko, crocodile, chameleon and snail.
g) Your wife defending your life in a fight by grabbing your attacker's genitals. "If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity."

There are countless more odd verses in the Bible. If we were to be a society that follows the law of the Bible literally, we would be a Christian version of the Taliban. And anyway, not everyone in the world is a Christian, so to eliminate all homosexuals in the world because of what your religion dictates, then that would be selfish and it would make no sense.

3. There is no sufficient proof that homosexuality is the source of aids. Most professionals agree that AIDS originated in Africa in primates and was later transferred to humans. To believe that AIDS originated due to homosexuality is a myth and is false. Furthermore, even if my opponent were right, there is already AIDS. AIDS has already become a viral disease among heterosexual and/or homosexual societies in the world and there is absolutely no reason to eliminate homosexuals even if they were to cause this disease. That is the equivalent of eliminating all monkeys because HIV originated from them (scientific view). And to eliminate them because they carry the disease would also be inhumane. That would be like eliminating all heterosexuals because they carry the disease.

In conclusion, there's no compelling reason to eliminate homosexuals from the world. They are simply not dangerous, and they are as human as you or me.

Vote Pro

Sources: Sharp, PM; Hahn, BH (2011 Sep). "Origins of HIV and the AIDS Pandemic". Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in medicine 1 (1): a006841. doi:10.1101/cshperspect.a006841. PMC 3234451. PMID 22229120.
Debate Round No. 1
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by syedemir 3 years ago
syedemir
Hi there Justin, I'm new to this website, but what does "multi account" mean? and why is something inside you screaming that term?
Posted by justin.graves 3 years ago
justin.graves
Something inside me is screaming: "Multi-account!"
Posted by syedemir 3 years ago
syedemir
Vote Con* not Pro. sorry
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Overkill 3 years ago
Overkill
anusdestoryersyedemirTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: The conduct and behaviour of Pro (anusdestoryer) was appalling to say the least. Nought sources were provided and had no diversity. I will make clear of my bias that I am bisexual. To conclude my reasoning, I will be giving all of my available votes to Con.
Vote Placed by wolfman4711 3 years ago
wolfman4711
anusdestoryersyedemirTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Sigh
Vote Placed by Legitdebater 3 years ago
Legitdebater
anusdestoryersyedemirTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con since Pro insulted a group of people. Arguments to Con for successfully refuting all of Pro's points and using scientific evidence. Sources to Con because he verified his scientific argument.
Vote Placed by newbiehere 3 years ago
newbiehere
anusdestoryersyedemirTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Funny that this debate would come from someone whose username is "anusdestoryer [sic]." Anyway, voting was easy for obvious reasons. Pro was proposing a change in the status quo for (presumably) the U.S., but only used the Bible for... ehhhh, just read Con's rebuttals. I'm too lazy to summarize this.