The Instigator
DeepInThought
Pro (for)
Winning
17 Points
The Contender
nate_sk
Con (against)
Losing
3 Points

Is it a good thing for same sex marriage to be legal in the US

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...
DeepInThought
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/12/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,545 times Debate No: 78621
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (39)
Votes (4)

 

DeepInThought

Pro

Hello nate_sk I have been looking for someone to debate the same sex marriage law that allows people of the same sex to be legally married. I read what you said on the opinion section, and figured that you could be a fun and challenging opponent.
This debate if you chose to except will have you placed as con.
We will have 5 rounds with 2 days to respond with your argument.
You may present your argument in the first round.
If you do take up this debate, good luck and thank you for your consideration.
nate_sk

Con

Hello,

By your arguing for the case of same sex marriage, I am going to assume that by "same sex marriage" you are implying that it is a faithful, monogamous marriage between two consenting adults of the same sex.

Also, correct me if I am wrong, but I will assume you also think homosexuality itself is "good" as opposed to "bad", at least in the objective sense.

Firstly, allow me to appeal to your sense of "absolute truth". If same sex marriage is, in fact, "good" in the objective sense, then it must, in fact, be "good" for ALL people, in ALL places, at ALL times (even the time before the invention of In Vitro Fertilization, which I will explain soon). That is what would be called an "absolute truth" -- in the same way that loving your children or taking care of the environment is objectively "good" for ALL people, in ALL places, and at ALL times.

Anyways, let's pretend for a moment that this was actually the case 1000 years ago, and every single human being on earth was homosexual and engaged in a faithful monogamous same sex marriage (which you affirm as a good thing). However, since there would be no IVF, and marriage was faithfully only between two people of the same sex, then I'm afraid that we wouldn't be having this debate right now because the entire human race would have gone extinct about 900 years ago".
Congratulations everyone.

In other words, if you still objectively believe same sex marriage to be "a good thing", then you must also logically believe human extinction to be "a good thing" as well.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
DeepInThought

Pro

First off I would like to thank nask_sk for accepting my challenge, and hope that this will be a fun and informative debate"
Next I would like to remind nask_sk that the legalizing of same sex marriage is not the same as forcing everyone to be a member of the LGBT community, the very idea that I would say that it is good to force the heterosexual community to marry only members of their own gender is absurd. I am arguing that continuing to allow people of the LGBT to get married is a good thing for the US to do.
So now that we are on the same page let me give you some (but not all) of my reasons for having same sex marriage being legal, is a step in the right direction for the US.
1.By legalizing same sex marriage we are allowing people who are already in love and married even without the legal paper work, to finally be able to fill that paper work out, and have the same privileges that a married heterosexual couple can enjoy.
2.They can adopt: As a kid who was adopted I can tell you that the child care system is swamped with kids. Having more married couples that can have both members be legal guardians, can be a huge advantage for the kids that they could very well adopt or take care of by bringing in foster care kids.
3.By allowing same sex marriage you are allowing approximately 4 million people who classify as LGBT (according to the Huffington post) to get married to the person that they want to be with. That sounds like the kind of thing that a fair country would do.
So now that I have given you 3 reasons why we should keep the law that allows same sex marriage I now will allow you to rebuttal. I again thank you for accepting this debate, and hope that now that we are on the same page of what the debate is about, we can move forward and have a fun and informative debate.
nate_sk

Con

Hi again,

You misunderstood my statement about the obvious effects of a whole world being a part of a same sex marriage.

You said: "legalizing of same sex marriage is not the same as forcing everyone to be a member of the LGBT community"

Great. I never said that everyone would be "forced", I said that IF "every single human being on earth was homosexual and engaged in a faithful monogamous same sex marriage.....then I'm afraid that we wouldn't be having this debate right now because the entire human race would have gone extinct about 900 years ago".

I assume they all wanted to be in a homo marriage, not forced.

Now, I also said that, IF everyone in the world took care of the environment, or IF everyone loved their children, that would be "good", and the effects of that would, I'm sure, be agreeable to us both. If its good for anybody, its good for everybody.

However, IF everyone 1000 years ago was "engaged in a faithful monogamous same sex marriage", the human race would have gone extinct long ago..

That's looking at homo marriage objectively, (ie, what are the products of it, and how are they justified)

*****

Now, on the other hand, YOUR appeal to emotion is NOT objective, it is purely subjective. For example, you said:

"By legalizing same sex marriage we are allowing people who are already in love and married even without the legal paper work, to finally be able to fill that paper work out,..."

..."in love"?? ...is that how law should be dictated and altered in your opinion?

...is "love" your standard of what should be lawful and good for the nation?

okay, lets go there then...

Firstly, I want to clarify something: that even before the legislating of gay marriage, homos have historically had the same liberties and restrictions as heteros have had in regards to marriage; in other words, FULL EQUALITY OF RIGHTS.
How?
For example:
1) both homos and heteros had to marry the same species (no bestiality),
2) both could not marry their immediate relatives (no incest)
3) both had to marry the opposite sex(no homo marriage), and
4) both could not marry more than one person (no polygamy), etc...

So, if you think it is a GOOD thing to eliminate one of these restrictions(no homo marriage) primarily based on "love", then what is stopping the rest of the restrictions from being thrown out? Why not eliminate them all?

Well, just for fun, lets see how that would look, shall we?

So, if "love" is all it should take to change the established laws of the land, then what about the man who is "in love" with five or six women at once? Should he be able to marry them all?
If you don't agree, then you are a Polygamophobe who hates that man and doesn't want him to be happy.

Or, what about the 55 year old father who has a passionate "love" for his 18 year old daughter who is also "in love" with him? Are you going to refuse their right to marry and have sex with each other, even if they are "in love"?
If you don't think a father and his daughter should have sex and get married, then you are an Incestophobic bigot.

Or what about your best friend who has a strong "love" for his/her dog, which obviously loves them back? Are you going to disallow their right to have sex with each other and get married, even if they aren't both human? Who cares though??...as long as they are "in love", right? Isn't "love" enough to convince you that it is "good" and lawful?
Furthermore, if the thought of your best friend having sex with an animal makes you uncomfortable, then that just proves you are a Beastiophobic hater of animals, I suppose. Naturally, it also means you hate your best friend.

Get it?
You see where I am going with this?

Once you establish new laws by what people "love" and things that they are attracted to, then where does it stop??
I will tell you. It doesn't.

*****

As for homos adopting children, well, I have a little experience with this, but take it as you will:
A female homo couple I knew, had an adopted daughter, and it was extremely awkward when that girl got a boyfriend(no surprise there), since, well, her "parents" seemed to have a hatred for men.
And that girl obviously couldn't talk to her "moms" about boys, since they let that ship sail long ago, and it was almost as if their lifestyle was not good enough for her, because well, she liked boys, not girls......yup, it was awkward as hell to say the least.

On the other hand, that would never happen with male and female parents.

Just a thought.

*****

Your last point was just a reiteration of your first point of allowing people to do what they "feel" they want to do.

Your main argument was subjective, not objective, for it only dealt with feelings, not facts.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
DeepInThought

Pro

To Nask_sk: First off I"m afraid that I must disagree with you when you say "If it"s good for anybody, it"s good for everybody". A medicine that I use to take for my ADHD, would help me calm down, and focus better, but if anyone ells took it without being like me, they would have the opposite reaction and they would have such a powerful burst of energy that if they have a weak enough heart, they could end up having a heart attack from having their heart trying to catch up with the rest of them. This is just one example out of many, that end up having it to be were something is good for a few people, and not the rest.
But all this is beside the point because where not debating on if in some parallel dimension, were everyone was homosexual if we would go extinct or not. What we"re debating is if the letting the homosexuals who are in the real world in the real US, to continue having the right to get married is a good thing or not. (PS I do agree that if we all loved our children and took care of our planet that would be a good thing)
As for your answers to my appeal.
Love and the law to marriage are two very important parts of a western culture marriage. So instead of the father of a girl basically auctioning off his daughter to the person with the biggest dowry offer, like they used to do. Now a girl can legally marry the man (or woman) that she wishes, without the father"s receiving payment. (If they are over 18). People in love with each other made that happen. So yes, as long as there aren"t any problems, medically, or in getting consent from one of the 2 getting married, I believe that the law should allow it. (And before you bring in statutory rape, I believe that an age limit dose need to be past, before you can give an informed legal consent)(Sorry pedophiles)
By the way, my standard of what should be lawful is a case by case bases, but mainly I look at what harm something can do, and what good it can do, then calculate, whether it harms or helps the people that are being effected, in this case the LGBT community. I believe that this helps them a lot, and doesn"t hurt or really effect other people nearly as much or in nearly the quantity. Also almost 2/3 of Americans agree with me!!! www.washingtonpost.com
You said that homosexuals and heterosexuals have the same rights, and that if you took one of the restrictions out why not take all of them out.
Well I"m glad you asked, if you have been reading carefully, you will note that I said that "as long as there aren"t any problems, medically, or in getting consent from one of the 2 getting married, then I think that the law should allow it." Now I should correct myself with my 1 exception. I wouldn't"t dare infringe on someone"s right to get married because that someone has a disease or a sickness, which just wouldn't"t be right.
But with your 4 examples I would have to say that"
1st Bestiality can, A: cause dangerous diseases to be brought onto humans by the exchange of body fluids with another species, being as humans won"t have any natural protection in our immune systems it can spread quickly and deadly, wearing protection doesn"t work with animals. B: more importantly most animals that I know of don"t know enough to be able to give consent, according to scienceray.com (a website that tries to make animals look smart) only some of them at the peak of their maturity and with training could do what a 5 year old dose to pass the time. So I say animals can"t give consent in a human system.
2nd As for incest, many pregnancies by way of inbreeding have a much higher chance of having a miscarriage, or the child having birth defects which has a much higher chance of leading to the child having a short and painful life. So medically it is harmful to a child.
3rd We already are talking about this and we will come to this in time.
4th Polygamy. I have no problem with polygamy as long as the following criteria are met, A, all members of the relationship are aware and willing to be part of the relationship, B, they have their assets in order, to be able to go to the other people in the marriage. This is another debate entirely though so I shall leave it at that.
So that is my reasoning against incest and bestiality (by the way Polygamophobe, Incestophobic, and Beastiophobic are not words, and have never been part of the English language)
From what you said in your story, it seems to me that you think that homosexuals know almost nothing about the other gender, this is, I"m afraid a mistake that many make. So please let me correct you on one point. Many, if I do not say most homosexuals find out that they are homosexual when dating a person of the other gender, and find that they really just aren"t that into that other gender. (At least this is what I have found while researching homosexuality, and interviewing homosexuals that I have met) So most of them do in fact know of the other gender, and could talk to their heterosexual child about them.
Also you are trying to put a spin on the adoption argument, but if I break down your story to its moral, we have, I once knew two women who hated men, and they were lesbian, so I figure that must mean that all lesbians hate men and don"t want to see any men be with any women. Ridicules right?
As for my last point of the previous round, the important part of it was the 4 million people part, just to let you know how many people you"re willing to deny from being with the person that they want to be with on what many call the most important day of your life.
So now that I have hit the points of your rebuttal, I will finish my part of this round by continuing my argument. This time I will be asking you some questions.
1.If you are against people of the same gender being together in a sexual relationship, what are your feelings on people who are hermaphroditic , do they only have the right to be with people who are also intersex? Or can they be with someone who is half their gender in either direction?
2.Do you recognize how a lot people who are against same sex marriage, argue in similar ways with similar arguments that the people who were against cross racial marriage did?
3.What about people who have a sex change operation done on them, do they get to be with people of the gender that they used to be a part of? Or do they have to be with the gender that they are now? Still making them homosexuals.
4.How dose same sex marriage effect you personally, what harm does it do to you?
I leave this to you now, to ponder my questions and try to rebuttal my points, and I hope that the next section will be just as fun to read.
nate_sk

Con

****** Hi again, you said: "First off I"m afraid that I must disagree with you when you say "If it"s good for anybody, it"s good for everybody". A medicine that I use to take for my ADHD, would help me calm down, and focus better, but if anyone ells took it without being like me, they would have the opposite reaction and they would have such a powerful burst of energy that if they have a weak enough heart, they could end up having a heart attack"

I agree. But you misunderstood my point of objectivity. For example, that specific medicine you take for ADHD is not going to be good for all people, in all places, at all times. However, Medicine itself as a scientific accomplishment is most certainly "good" for all people, at all places, at all times, even though the "type" of medicine is conditionally specific for every person. Make sense? That's what I meant.

And I am not appealing to some "parallel dimension" as you put it; I am appealing to logical conclusions in regards to THIS dimension, not another one. I still argue that without science and technology, the pro-homo marriage argument falls apart, because, frankly, (as scientific history has proven) homosexual couples do not, and cannot, reproduce. And without In Vitro, there would have to be at least ONE male and ONE female in any given marriage, or else they would not have a chance at forming a new life (unless one of them commits fornication or adultery in the marriage, and produces a child, either with their mate, or another; and then the marriage would no longer be between two people anymore, but three...)

In other words, homo marriage between two people makes about as much sense as an extension cord that has the same type of end on both sides. It would be a useless item that no one would buy"
...and I don't buy it either.

*****

Should homo marriage be lawful? Well, that depends; it depends on whether it would be ultimately good for the nation and the citizens who live in it, which we will look at later.

*****

You said: "Love and the law to marriage are two very important parts of a western culture marriage."

Where did you get that info? As I said, if, in your opinion, "love" is just as important to marriage as the "law", then all it would take to change any law is the right amount of "love"...
(ie. a person "loving" their dog enough for the "law" to change, allowing them the legal right to marry and have sex). You see, in my opinion, "love" and every other subjectivity, should have no place in legal matters.

Besides, as you know, America was founded upon Biblical principles (ie. Love thy neighbour, as thyself) and the Biblical definition of "love" is purely, utterly, and completely OBJECTIVE, and yet you are appealing to the definition of love in merely subjective terms.
Love is an act of the will, whether you "feel" it or not. You must "love" your children, even when they rebel against you and you don"t "feel" emotionally attached to them at the moment. Furthermore, in the Bible, Jesus said to "love your enemies"; does that mean that we are to marry our enemies, because we love them? Of course not. It seems that your definition of love is much different than what it was historically.

*****

In regards to the question I asked about the father having sex with his daughter, you said:
"So yes, as long as there aren't any problems, medically, or in getting consent from one of the 2 getting married, I believe that the law should allow it."

It is interesting that you attempted to ridicule historical methods of courtship(ie, paying the dowry) and yet your own morals would legally permit a father to have sex with his own daughter whenever they want to? ".wow. So tell me, what if that father was your closest brother, and that girl was your own neice? Would you still be okay with it?

*****

You said:
"(And before you bring in statutory rape, I believe that an age limit dose need to be past, before you can give an informed legal consent)(Sorry pedophiles)"

I never mentioned pedophilia. And to what do attribute your "age limit"?

*****

You said:
"By the way, my standard of what should be lawful is a case by case bases, but mainly I look at what harm something can do, and what good it can do, then calculate, whether it harms or helps the people that are being effected, in this case the LGBT community.

So, what about the non-LGBT community? Do you not care about the "harm" it does them??

Well, what about the poor old church pastor who has been faithful to his little country chapel and has believed for 60 years that homosexuality is wrong? Would you have him fired and lose his church just because he doesn"t believe what you believe?? Oh, please tell us.

...and just because 2/3 of America believes you, doesn't mean squat. Popular opinion is not always right. Do I really have to mention 1940"s Germany?

*****

You said that bestiality CAN cause dangerous diseases that we have no natural protection from. Yet you cannot empirically prove that it ALWAYS DOES. So what? I can prove that homosexuality CAN (and does) also cause dangerous diseases that we have no natural protection from (ie, AIDS). So according to your logic, homosexuality is just as dangerous as bestiality. And yet you are against bestiality but not against homosexuality?

Well, that should deal with the "medical" aspect of the dog-human relationship..

You also say that "most animals that I know of don"t know enough to be able to give consent"... so what? Firstly, you don"t know the case of every single animal do you?
I, personally, have seen a dog trying to literally "hump" a human being before...does that qualify as giving consent "in a human system" enough for you? How many 5 year old humans have you seen do that? "...

And there goes the non-consent argument against a dog-human relationship.

In other words, if your "standard of what should be lawful is a case by case bases", then in the case of an adult dog humping an adult human, there should be "no problem" in having the laws changed so they can marry each other and have sex, provided the human is a-okay with it.

*****

You said:
"As for incest, many pregnancies by way of inbreeding have a much higher chance of having a miscarriage, or the child having birth defects which has a much higher chance of leading to the child having a short and painful life."

So, let me get this straight; your argument against incest-births is: Possible defects in the child being born.

Again, you cannot prove that every single incestuously breeded child has defects".(many do not have serious defects at all)
In fact, many children born of NON-incestuous relationships have multiple birth defects as well.
So, according to your logic, non-incestuous relationships should not be lawful; albeit, to a lesser extent, but the argument is the same against both.

*****

Well, it was interesting hearing your evidence for your points, but I think they fall short of being convincing, since they are not absolute, and can be reversed, as I showed.

*****

you said:
"(by the way Polygamophobe, Incestophobic, and Beastiophobic are not words, and have never been part of the English language)"

Neither was "Islamophobia" or "homophobia" for that matter, until recent years...

*****

I appreciate your opinion on the lifestyle of homosexuals, and their stories, but I also have met a few, and a couple of reasons that I perceived they became homosexuals was that:
1) they were rejected and hurt by the other sex so extensively at some point in their life that they turned away from it, and 2) they felt the urge to "fit in" and so they "found out" they were bi-sexual or homosexual. But to me it seemed a sham, since one of the guys was chasing girls like a rabid dog earlier in his life. Apparently, it didnt work out for him, and I believe he just gave up on it".
And if he ever does adopt with his "boyfriend", I don"t expect he would have many kind words to say about girls...
Just a thought.

And I didn"t say that all lesbians hate men, you said that. And yes, its ridiculous.

*****

And yes, I would deny 4 million people from NOT making 4 million more children which would only build up our nation. Damn right I would. And you would too if you gave a damn about our nation, and not about people"s "feelings" so much.

Any nation that wishes to survive needs to have families; history has proven this.
Destroy the family, and you destroy the nation. Period.

*****

you said:
"If you are against people of the same gender being together in a sexual relationship, what are your feelings on people who are hermaphroditic , do they only have the right to be with people who are also intersex? Or can they be with someone who is half their gender in either direction?"

I am not familiar with any hermaphrodites. In my opinion, there should be a dominant gender in the child. Does every hermaphro have a uterus and a sperm bank? Or are they just external?

*****

you said:
2.Do you recognize how a lot people who are against same sex marriage, argue in similar ways with similar arguments that the people who were against cross racial marriage did?

No, I do not.

*****

you said:
3.What about people who have a sex change operation done on them, do they get to be with people of the gender that they used to be a part of? Or do they have to be with the gender that they are now? Still making them homosexuals.

Trans(across)gender is not even a scientific word in my opinion. I remember hearing of a woman who became a man, and then sometime later got pregnant"
Ultimately, what God made you in the womb, you will always be. Women and men are biologically and mentally different. Its just the way it is.

*****

you said:
4.How dose same sex marriage effect you personally, what harm does it do to you?

What if I told you my poor old dad was that old pastor who was fired because of his beliefs against homo marriage...

(PS: it is "affect", not "effect")

Thank you
Debate Round No. 3
DeepInThought

Pro

To Nask_sk: The point of my beginning argument in the last round was to say that you have things that work for some people that don"t work for others, you still disagree, even though my example was a pill that for me and people like me, it is just fine, but for every one ells it is not fine to take, and could kill them, yes medicine as a whole is good for everyone, but for that pill it is not good for everyone, and that"s why it is illegal to take or even have on you, without a prescription. This means that this pill is harmful to most people and is only good if you are like me.
Marriage can be considered good for most people, but what kind of marriage (same sex or traditional marriage) it is, is on a case by case bases, for some people having a same sex marriage, is what is best for them, but for others a heterosexual marriage is right for them. So basically I believe that the type of something that is good for people is important, and is what we should be looking at, I believe that, because that is what makes us individuals.
So with your argument that if everyone a thousand years ago had been in a faithful same sex marriage I put what I said before. This is irrelevant because not everyone is LGBT, and by allowing the LGBT community to marry will not make it to where the heterosexuals will have to get married, we have enough of a population to where have not only enough kids to be the next generation of mankind but in many countries including the US, have a surplus, of kids, so we don"t need to have everyone reproducing, to keep our population in check, what we need are more homes for the kids in the child care system, (as I said in round two in which you responded with a story saying, I one knew a lesbian couple who adopted a daughter, and it was awkward when she came home with a boyfriend) I responded with saying that not all gays and lesbians hate the other gender, in fact very few of them do, (which you just agreed with me) and that story is pointless because that is only one couple, out of the 4 million in the US. So why could a gay or lesbian couple not adopt? I can"t think of any reason why not.
"Besides, as you know, America was founded upon Biblical principles" I was wondering when you would play the religion card, I would like to say, so what? That was in the past and now we live in a nation that is supposed to try to separate church and state, so we don"t end up like England did and go to war against nations because of their different beliefs, The 100 year war, the Crusades, many others. Which actually might make it to where we need to have everyone on board to repopulate.
There are different kinds of love, for example I love a good debate, yet I can"t marry a debate. Plus you may wish to brush off your Greece because the bible"s New Testament was originally written in Greek, where they used different words for kinds of love that the English language just roped in to one. So the version of love that I am using is the in love kind, not the, I"ll treat you right kind of way.
When you tried quoting me on my views of what kind of intercourse and marriage should be legal and what shouldn"t it seems as if you didn"t read my point about Inbreeding having a probable chance of birth defects, and a short and painful life for the kid. That"s why I said I disagree with it, and that is why it is illegal.
So please read all of what I say before you attack my personal moral beliefs. Thank you
Age limit= 18 as an adult.
About your dad I"m sorry that he lost his job, but that was because his congregation felt that he was no longer preaching what they believed (most likely on more than on just homosexuality) so you can"t blame that on homosexual marriage, because it was not what got your dad fired, it was his disagreeing with what the church believed. (I"ve was raised a Baptist I know how these things work) So no same sex marriage doesn"t hurt other people.
You may note that with the bestiality section, I said "B: more importantly most animals that I know of don"t know enough to be able to give consent, according to scienceray.com (a website that tries to make animals look smart)" this is talking about how animals and human brains work differently. That"s how we survive, we may not be as good at surviving as most animals, so we created civilization as a way to survive. We think how to make a tool to get what we need, most animals don"t understand the concept of making tools, because they can naturally survive with their own unaided strengths. We think how to get along peacefully without having it be to where we just have the biggest brute making all of the decisions, all other species that live in groups, have the alpha who leads them, and that alpha is always the biggest and toughest. This is why they can"t give consent, because they can"t understand human systems, (plus dogs hump everything, you look up on YouTube, dog humps stuffed toy, that doesn"t mean that the toy and dog must get married.
I should have pointed out that just because same sex marriage is legalized, that incest and bestiality have to follow, I mean Canada, Ireland, the Netherlands, others, have legal same sex marriage, and they haven"t legalized incest or bestiality, so why would America have to be the only one to go down that path, why not just stop at homosexuality, (where all of the STDs are human, and can be passed through heterosexual sex as well.) and maybe polygamy, where the risk are the same for them medically, as are for heterosexual sex.
(And again on birth defects, inbreeding has the probability of birth defects, unlike normal breeding, again why it is illegal, and why normal intercourse is not)
So before you say that my arguments are easy to reverse, make sure that you have read it carefully, that you understand what I have said, and that your counters, have been thought through completely.
(By the way just because there are words that have only come about in the last few years, doesn"t mean that you can start making them up as you go along, if everyone did that then America would become the new tower of Babble.
For the next part, who exactly did you talk to, to get them to admit that they "felt the urge to "fit in" and so they "found out" they were bi-sexual or homosexual." Most people are not homosexuals, so how would that make them fit in, so how you perceived (while being bias against homosexuals) it, was probably not the case at all.
I have already covered the point about how we already have kids within the system, so instead of just having more kids, you can have more couples out their (homosexual and heterosexual) ready to adopt the kids we already have.
(You mentioned destroying the family destroys the nation. I agree completely so let"s not stop couples from having perfectly good functioning families)
To your answers to my questions, I have this to say,
1st you said in your opinion there should be a dominant gender in the child, although that is usually the case, it isn"t always, and as many of my old science teachers would always say, those who add their opinion to science are bias and should be discredited immediately.
2nd whether you recognize that most anti-gay activist (at least that I have talked to and that are on the news) are repeating a lot of what was said when people were trying to get married and be together with people of other ethnicity's is still a fact, that can"t be denied, in the eyes of history.
3rd Again you are trying to say that your opinion controls scientific fact, Transgender is a word, its definition is: of, relating to, or being a person (as a transsexual or a transvestite) who identifies with or expresses a gender identity that differs from the one which corresponds to the person's sex at birth. www.merriam-webster.com
As for biology and phycology between men and women, the biology can be changed with an operation, the phycology has a lot to do with when your being raised, girls get dolls and stuff that influences them to be nurturing, while boys get action figures that teach them to be rougher and tougher (nature) (my source on this is from conversations with my sister who is getting her doctoral in sociology and was head of her old universities phycology club)
4th again I"m sorry about your old man, but that was his congregation who fired him, for not representing what they believed their church stands for, not the homosexuals who he was speaking out against.
I have some more questions for you now"
1.Same sex marriage is legal in a few countries, and nothing bad has happened in any of them, what is the difference between the US and them that will make it to where our nation will be hurt by this decision while they have not?
2.Is it constitutional to not allow people of the same gender not to marry, while they have the majority vote, the civil rights card, and the go ahead from a supreme court ruling?
3.In some of the Middle East countries, (with violent Muslim extremist controlling the countries) they have been accused by the UN, of forcing homosexuals into pits then toppling walls on them. (mass executions) Do you agree with these actions, and if not what would your solution to the "gay problem" be?
Affect has synonyms like distress, and have and emotional impact (Microsoft thesaurus) effect is just another word that works. (Nice try though)
This was fun, you"re a smart guy who is pretty good at debating, but again please have fact for your argument. Over to you"
(P.S I was running out of time, so I didn't have much time to proof read this round. So If I misspelled any thing I'm sorry)
nate_sk

Con

To Leftist Liberal (you): It is apparent you have no desire to reason or to admit the flaws in any of your arguments, so I will briefly re-iterate a few points in plain English so you can understand.

On second thought, I"m not so sure you would understand since you cant differentiate between "affect" and "effect", so let me educate you quickly: to "Affect" means 'to act upon or have an influence on'; to "Effect" means 'to bring about or create'. If you "affect" something, you do to it. If you "effect" something, you cause it to be. (Dictionary.com)
You previously said: "How dose same sex marriage effect you personally, what harm does it do to you?"

You see, your use of the word "effect" implied that same sex marriage "created me or brought me about", which is clearly a grammatical error on your part (Grade 4 Language Arts)

Now, on to the subject at hand, which is not to reason with you (because you are clearly unreasonable), but rather to expose your lies, errors, inconsistencies, double-standards and hypocrisies spread throughout your response. I will try to be concise. Furthermore, I will give you "facts" to support them, because, well, that"s what you asked for; eventhough Leftists like yourself don"t really care what the evidence says when it"s against you. Now get some popcorn, sit down, shutup and enjoy. I know I will.

***
Firstly,
You said: "but what kind of marriage (same sex or traditional marriage) it is, is on a case by case bases, for some people having a same sex marriage, is what is best for them,"

ERROR#1: You are equating "kinds" of marriage, with "kinds" of medicine.

Yes, marriage is good. Yes, medicine is good. Yes, Ritalin(for ADHD) is a kind of medicine. But NO, gay marriage is NOT a "kind" of marriage; it is the polar opposite. And I"ll prove it.

1) Medicine has historically been defined as a "treatment, cure, remedy, c.1200" (Dictionary.com)

2) Marriage has historically been defined as "a union of a man and woman for life by marriage, a particular matrimonial union; c.1400" (Dictionary.com)

Now, you argue that it is good to do away with just the historical/traditional method of marriage and to legalize gay marriage. But, gay marriage is a "kind" of marriage that is a completely OPPOSITE definition to marriage (ie., man and man for life by marriage, or same sex marriage), and therefore cannot be called a "kind" of marriage at all.

If you think it can be, than this logically means (by your own previous comparison of "kinds") that it should be okay to ALSO add to the traditional meaning of "medicine" a new, OPPOSITE definition like "infliction, harm, desecration."

Thus, if gay marriage is simply another "kind" of marriage, then you might as well say that arsenic can actually be called another "kind" of medicine.

But, of course you won"t agree with this, lol.
INCONSISTENCY #1: You will compare "kinds" of medicine to "kinds" of marriage, and yet you will change the definition of whichever one suits your own prejudice.

Utter nonsense.
***
ERROR #2: You claim that a gay community is somehow good for society.

HYPOCRISY#1: You said: "as many of my old science teachers would always say, those who add their opinion to science are bias and should be discredited immediately."

Pay attention.

WASHINGTON, DC, June 6, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) " A new study which analyzed tens of thousands of gay obituaries and compared them with AIDS deaths data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), has shown that the life expectancy for homosexuals is about TWENTY YEARS SHORTER than that of the general public. The study, entitled "Gay obituaries closely track officially reported deaths from AIDS", has been published in Psychological Reports (2005;96:693-697).

Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) of all races and ethnicities remain the population most profoundly affected by HIV.In 2010, the estimated number of new HIV infections among MSM was 29,800, a significant 12% increase from the 26,700 new infections among MSM in 2008. Although MSM represent about 4% of the male population in the United States, in 2010, MSM accounted for 78% of new HIV infections among males and 63% of all new infections. (https://www.aids.gov...)

Is this the kind of "homes" you think orphans should grow up in? Sure it is, if you hate children, and dont care if their parents die young and riddled with disease.

...and yet you said: "So why could a gay or lesbian couple not adopt? I can"t think of any reason why not."

Well, now I gave you two"
***
ERROR #3: You said:not all gays and lesbians hate the other gender, in fact very few of them do.

Actually, many do, not "very few"; and it is obvious in the feminist movement.
"Lesbian feminism is a cultural movement and critical perspective, most influential in the 1970s and early 1980s...that encourages women to direct their energies toward other women rather than men, and often advocates lesbianism as the logical result of feminism" (Rich, A. (1980). Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence. Signs, 5, 631"660.)
***
"DOUBLE STANDARD #1: You ridiculed my use of the "religion card," ...and yet later you affirmed the use of gay couples using the "civil rights card" to be allowed to marry.

Need I remind you that the only reason you HAVE Civil Rights is BECAUSE of religion?
You condemn historical religious Christianity whilst standing upon the freedom it provided for you; how damn ignorant.
It was Christianity that pioneered science, freedom, and the disintegration of slavery in America and Europe, so watch your mouth. (The Crusades were a DEFENSIVE response to 400 years of Muslim tyranny in the East, btw.)
***
INCONSISTENCY#2: Your comment about the separation of church and state is totally uneducated: the religious beliefs of Secularism have indeed swept over the West, and yes, of course it affects the state, and everyone in it.

Don"t believe me? How come CHURCHES have to still abide by the laws of the STATE?? (ie,perform gay marriages).... Lol, your staunch ignorance amuses me.
***
ERROR#4: you said:"the bible"s New Testament was originally written in Greek, where they used different words for kinds of love that the English language just roped in to one.So the version of love that I am using is the in love kind, not the, I"ll treat you right kind of way."

Thanks for the insult to "brush up on my Greek", but in fact, the nobles version of "love" found in the Greek NT is the word "agapeo" which means "to welcome, to entertain, to be fond of, to love dearly". The kind of "love" that I think you are referring to is "phileo" which means """spontaneous natural affection, with more feeling than reason" (Elwell, p. 1357).

Indeed, "more FEELING than REASON". It is a subjective love. Keep it out of legal matters.
***
INCONSISTENCY#3: You reject incest (even if the two involved are "phileo" in love).
INCONSISTENCY#4: You reject inbreeding only because of the probability of birth defects, whereas regular breeding has a considerable amount of birth defects as well. "Fact: Birth defects affect 1 in 33 babies every year and cause 1 in 5 infant deaths. For many babies born with a birth defect, there is no family history of the condition." (http://www.cdc.gov...)

So, according to these facts, why don"t you also reject regular breeding as well?

...oh wait, you do, because you support gay marriage.
***
INCONSISTENCY#5 So, why do you support the legal age of 18? You appealed to the bestiality laws of Ireland, and yet Scotland it is 16? So, who"s to say they are wrong and you are right? Because the LAW says so?
But I thought you are for "changing the law" for gays to marry if they are already "in love"?
So, why dont you support changing laws so two 17 year olds in love can marry too?

Because your arguments have no legs to stand on but what you are told by the media, lol.
***
LIE# 2: You said: "About your dad I"m sorry that he lost his job, but that was because his congregation felt that he was no longer preaching what they believed"

Firstly, you"re not sorry, or else you wouldn"t support gay marriage. It has happened to dozens of pastors who have lost everything because of the gays pushing their vile perversion in everyones face and demanding they celebrate their sin.
And No, actually, it wasn"t "because his congregation felt" anything. It was because of the gay community forcing the law to bend.

"Coeur d"Alene, Idaho, city officials have laid down the law to Christian pastors within their community, telling them bluntly via an ordinance that if they refuse to marry homosexuals, they will face jail time and fines." (http://conservativebyte.com...#)
***
LIE# 3: You said you were raised a baptist.

Baloney. If you had half a clue about what a Baptist is, then you would know that it is not what the congregation believes that matters to a good pastor, but what the Bible says; and you would have responded accordingly. But you didn"t.
***
INCONSISTENCY# 6: You said: "dogs hump everything, you look up on YouTube, dog humps stuffed toy, that doesn"t mean that the toy and dog must get married."

No, but you conveniently condemned my analogy of a dog vs human in being able to give consent, and yet used your own analogy of a lifeless stuffed animal vs a dog.
***
ERROR#5: You said, "I mean Canada, Ireland, the Netherlands, others, have legal same sex marriage, and they haven"t legalized incest or bestiality, so why would America have to be the only one to go down that path"

Actually, they wouldnt be the first.
"You can also do it in chilly Finland or on the beaches of Hawaii as well as in Japan and certain parts of Australia, which also do not prohibit sexual activities between humans and animals."
(http://www.health24.com...-

Out of room..Ill finish my response in the next round
Debate Round No. 4
DeepInThought

Pro

To nate_sk: I would like to give you some pointers for future debates, that you may have against me or anyone ells for that matter.
"Debating pointer 1: Calm down, as Plexon_Warrior (a guy on your side of the debate) said to you on the opinion question were I found out that you aren"t so fond of the LGBT community, "Calm down. I agree with you, but God didn't give us the right to judge them. He actually commanded us to love them... Not in a sexual way, but you know what I mean." So don"t let your anger with as you said about them and their rainbow symbol, "GOD MADE THE RAINBOW AND YOU VILE CREATURES HAVE NO RIGHT TO PERVERT IT." to make you not think clearly in your wish to prove that they are in the wrong, instead of you.
"Debating pointer 2: Research your opponent, before you make clams that they can easily disprove and make you look foolish, even though your, as I said before, a smart guy who"s pretty good at debating. An example of you making this mistake is just this last round, when you called me Leftist Liberal, if you would have checked my profile you would see that I am an Independent. (who actually thinks that the whole left, right party system is obsolete, and now is a hindrance to our politics)
"Debating Pointer 5: state your sources, If you haven"t noticed, I had been putting down a few sources throughout the debate, I would only use a few of them so that you wouldn"t catch on and start doing it yourself, which allowed me to have more compelling arguments, between rounds 2 and 3, before I had to ask you to show any proof.
"Debating Pointer 6: this goes hand in hand with 2, but in this case you couldn"t have read, that I used to go to Spring Creek Baptist Church in Milwaukee Wisconsin during my earlier years every Sunday morning and every Wednesday night. (so yes I was a Baptist)
I think that I have covered most of my suggestions for you and hope that you will recognize that they weren"t meant to be insulting, but is just some wisdom that I am trying to pass along to you, Maybe now that we both know a little about each other, and see that there is more than just our own view, on the subject, we can shake hands and be friends, even if we don"t agree on some things, like I"m Andy Griffith and your Barney Fife (from the Andy Griffith Show) So can you as a anti same sex marriage activist accept my hand of friendship, as a pro same sex marriage activist, so that we can be friends after this debate is all said and done?
Back to the debate.
Now to your argument about how if you changed the definition of marriage, to except same sex marriage, you are making it to where you are making the definition to mean the opposite, I would argue that according to Thesaurus.com antonyms (or for clarity the opposite of what the word means) for the word marriage are antagonism, disunion, divorce, and separation. So nope, nothing to imply that by adding the words same sex before it would mean that you got anything but a different kind of marriage.
Now I will give you that the probability of a homosexual contracting aids is more likely, but it is like other STDs where you can be tested and can where protection to protect your partner. As for the homosexual"s shorter life expectancy, I say, yes, but according to madamenoire.com/.../study-black-life-expectancy African Americans have nearly a decade less lifetime expectancy then whites. So by your logic African Americans, because of their shorter lifetime expectancy statistically, they shouldn"t be allowed to adopt either, If this is the case (and I doubt that it is) then the list of people who are eligible to adopt kids is getting smaller and smaller, while the list of kids in the child care system is getting larger and larger, especially if we take your idea that big reason for marriage is to get more people having kids.
So I can hardly think of how a home with responsible homosexuals who protect themselves, when lovemaking like any other sexually active couple who don"t want to contract any of the numerous STDs out there, can"t be able to raise a child.
A feminist advocates or supports the rights and equality of women. You can"t judge them by one movement, just as you can"t judge Christians, by the many more movements that have had more catastrophic consequences, such as the ongoing KKK, LRA, anyone who beats up the Jewish for "killing Jesus"
As for the religious and civil rights cards, I do criticize anyone who uses religion as an excuse to hate others, or to use violence, I disapprove of extremists, for religion, as well as, people who try to use civil rights as an excuse to get violent.
The reason why I said that the legal age for marriage should be 18 is because that is the age when (in the US) you are considered a legal adult who is responsible for yourself, so if you want to change that law, it is up to you, but that is for a different debate at a different time. (And your supposed inconsistency# 5 didn"t make any sense, where did the bestiality part come in.
Few thousand vs. 4 Mill
As a side note, a site that has stories with the titles Deez Nuts Will Have to Pull Out of Presidential Race, and save the confederate flag, might not be the best one to use)
Bestiality, Lack of laws against it is largely presumed to be due to it being uncommon, or a taboo subject most of society prefers to not think about. (rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bestiality)
I will bring up some facts of my own.
Adoption: For more proof on why gay/lesbian couples should be allowed to marry just in the category of the need for more married couples to be there to raise adopted children in a better home, consider the following approximately 400,540 children in foster care on September 30, 2011.
www.acf.hhs.gov/.../foster-care...Youth in Transition: this number has been rising, and as I mentioned before, we need more married couples to adopt, and we are not currently hitting or criteria, and because of this, each year, an estimated 20,000 young people "age out" of the U.S. foster care system. Many are only 18 years old and still need support and services. Several foster care alumni studies show that without a lifelong connection to a caring adult, these older youth are often left vulnerable to a host of adverse situations:
www.unmarried.org/parents-children/adoption
And there are always more on the way to being put into the system by the day
Currently, about half (51%) of the 6.6 million pregnancies in the United States each year (3.4 million) are unintended-www.guttmacher.org/.../FB-Unintended-Pregnancy
Countless unmarried partners (same-sex or different-sex) are co-parenting a child or children, but frequently only one partner has a legal relationship to the child(ren). In many cases it would benefit the child(ren) to have a legal relationship to both parents. Many, but not all, states allow "co-parent adoptions" or "second parent adoptions," which create a second legal parent-child relationship for these families. Qualified, screened single and LGBT people can be excellent parents. Having a single or LGBT parent could be in an individual child"s best interest, for a number of reasons. www.unmarried.org/parents-children/adoption
Economy: Same sex marriage can actually help improve the economy" this is a report by The Huffington Post Posted: 05/15/2013 (so this was written before the law was passed in all 50 states that"s why it is worded as will be instead of is)
It would boost tax revenues: Legalizing same-sex marriage would bring in between $20 million and $40 million more per year in taxes, according to a December paper from University of Michigan economist Adam Stevenson.
It helped NYC's economy: In the first year that gay marriage was legal in New York City, the city reaped $259 million, thanks to license fees and wedding-related spending, according to CNNMoney.
It would alleviate payroll headaches for many businesses: According to PBS, many companies argue that by not legalizing same-sex marriage, the U.S. is hindering their competitiveness by creating more administrative hurdles. For example, states where same-sex marriage isn't legal have different tax laws for same-sex versus opposite-sex couples.
It can boost struggling state economies: If California were to legalize same-sex marriage, it would generate $123 million for the state economy during the first three years same-sex marriage is legal, according to a 2005 Stanford study cited by the Fiscal Times. And the state could certainly use the money; California has been mired in a budget crisis for years. In Massachusetts, legalizing same-sex marriage has generated an estimated $111 million over the first five years same-sex marriage was legal, according to CNNMoney.
Lots of major corporations think it's a good idea: More than 60 companies, including Apple, Nike and Morgan Stanley, signed onto a brief submitted to the Supreme Court supporting same-sex marriage in February, according to Fortune. The companies argued that keeping same-sex marriage illegal made it difficult for them to recruit and hire top applicants. One major executive at Goldman Sachs almost considered leaving the country because states' differing same-sex marriage laws put his partner's student visa in jeopardy after they married.
Now these sources and videos support my argument that gay marriage should be legalized:
1.www.nytimes.com/.../obama-says-same-sex-marriage-should-be-legal.html
2.Go to you tube and look up "get educated about homosexuality", there you"ll find an educational cartoon, that will cover some of the points in more scientific ways then I can.
3.The Huffington post.
4.Gay Marriage Legalized In All 50 States | Historic Expansion Of Freedom: The Young Turks
5.YouTube from here on out, not really important to the debate, but we can all laugh at CNN
6.Jon Stewart Tackles the "Anti-Gay Cray Cray" in the Supreme Court, YouTube
7. June Is A Lovely Time For A Wedding The Late Show with Stephen Colbert
8.Hear is someone who "agrees" with you STEPHEN COLBERT IS APOPLECTIC THAT GAY MARRIAGE HAS COME TO THE PLACE HE CARES ABOUT THE MOST: VIDEO
9.Vote no to the gay, Facts
10.The ultimate anti-gay marriage ad.
1.So for my first round of questions, I asked, What about people who have a sex change operation done on them, do they get to be with people of the gender that they used to be a part of? Or do they have to be with the gender that they are now? Still making them homosexuals. To your credit you did answer it, but you never answered the question clearly, you answered that God makes you in the womb, but you never answered the question of whether or not the person who got their gender changed, should be allowed to be with the person of the gender that they used to be or aloud to be with the people of the gender that they are now?
2.Same sex marriage is legal in a few countries, and nothing bad has happened in any of them, what is the difference between the US and them that will make it to where our nation will be hurt by this decision while they have not? To be fair you did answer this one, but as I said, it was more of a so few people do it, so why even bother to take the time to illegalize it. So I still think that my question stands.
3.Is it constitutional to not allow people of the same gender not to marry, while they have the majority vote, the civil rights card, and the go ahead from a supreme court ruling?
4.In some of the Middle East countries, (with violent extremist controlling the countries) they have been accused by the UN, of forcing homosexuals into pits then toppling walls on them. (mass executions) Do you agree with these actions, and if not what would your solution to the "gay problem" be? I mean it is in Leviticus 20:13
5.I don"t know if you have a kid or not, but if you do, and he/she came to you and told you that they are homosexual what would be your reaction?
6.Do you believe that Jesus hated homosexuals and would call them vile creatures?
7.Be honest, what did you think of those videos that I recommended?
Thanks for the debate (sorry if it looks bad and didn"t cover all the part"s ran out of room.
nate_sk

Con

Hello again,
I will continue my response to the 4th round (which I didn't have enough room) and then I will conclude with my 5th and final response.

***

(Continued from last round".)
...And those words I mentioned, like "Incestophobia, Polygamophobia, etc." aren"t uncommon already. Just wait some years, and you"ll hear them everywhere from the people who are offended by the law that won"t allow them to marry siblings, animals, and multiple partners at once"(gay marriage is just the beginning)

***

As for the hermaphrodite nonsense, you gave no evidence good evidence for it, only your professor"s "opinion" (ironically enough) and I clearly ended my answer to it with a question mark. And, that"s not called "adding my opinion to science" because I never affirmed my opinion as science, nor admitted to having all the facts-to-date.

***

You said: "whether you recognize that most anti-gay activist (at least that I have talked to and that are on the news) are repeating a lot of what was said when people were trying to get married and be together with people of other ethnicity"s is still a fact.."

I honestly don't know why you are trying to bring this up, but it makes you sound kind of racist. This debate is about gay marriage, not cross-cultural marriage, and whatever is your stand on that is not in dispute here.

***

ERROR#6 You said: "Again you are trying to say that your opinion controls scientific fact, Transgender is a word, its definition is: of, relating to, or being a person.."

Again, no, I'm not, lol. And for your education, "trans" literally means "across". Maybe it"s you who needs to brush up on your Latin. That"s why the word makes no sense: because, scientifically (ie., mentally and biologically), a person cannot FULLY cross genders, unless they literally swap bodies and consciousnesses with someone of the opposite sex. This might be possible in the future, but for now, just cutting off an appendage or two, along with some psychotherapy treatment doesn't quite cut it. Sorry Bruce.

***

HYPOCRISY#2 and INCONSISTENCY#7: You said: "As for biology and phycology between men and women, the biology can be changed with an operation,"

As I said, you can't FULLY change someone"s biology, and besides, you provided no facts for that (which you demanded that I provide). And frankly, without your "facts" it looks like it"s you who is "adding opinions" to science, not me.

***

You said:
1.Same sex marriage is legal in a few countries, and nothing bad has happened in any of them...

"Nothing bad"? at all?? hmm, you see, I knew it. You just proved you dont give a damn about the pastors losing their jobs because of this atrocity caused by the gay community. You lied.

***

DOUBLE STANDARD#2: You said: "In some of the Middle East countries, (with violent Muslim extremist controlling the countries) they have been accused by the UN, of forcing homosexuals into pits then toppling walls on them. (mass executions) Do you agree with these actions, and if not what would your solution to the "gay problem" be?

Wait a second. So, you want me to sympathize with the gay community when a religious community persecutes them on the other side of the world, but yet you don"t sympathize with the religious community when the gay community are persecuting them over here??

wow, you are too much.

*****

Okay, now onto my 5th and final argument.

Wow, thanks for the debating "pointers", lol. Are you really trying to help me? Here"s how you can: speak out against the LGBT"s for causing so many pastors to lose jobs, and honest hardworking people to lose their businesses, okay? If not, then keep your "pointers" to yourself. Here"s just a fraction of the turmoil the LGBT community has caused:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com...

Furthermore, LGBT couples should stop shoving their pagan religion of homosexuality in other people"s business, because as you (don"t) know, homosexuality is deeply rooted in pagan practices. That's right: homosexuality is deeply rooted in paganism.

"When the Spanish conquistadores reached Central America and the Yucatan, they found a prevalence of Gay priests and sacred statues and stone sculpture depicting the homosexual union as a sacred act. In the Yucatan the god Chin is said to have established sacred homosexuality and a Gay priesthood serving in the temples just as was true of the temples of ancient Babylon and Sumeria (Grahn:129)."
http://www.defendthefamily.com...

That"s right. Homosexuals are just as religious as the Christians that they try to demonize; they just don"t know it yet.

In fact, homosexuals not only have a pagan religious heritage, they derive their arguments from religious principles (ie., the equality and dignity of all people, which comes right out of the first few chapters of the Old Testament in the Holy Bible where all "males and females are made in the image of God"). The Bible invented equality and dignity of all people, and yet the LGBT attempts to condemn the Bible with its own principles. That takes alot of pride to do.

***

As a side note, for you to use your space here to bring up something I said on an opinion poll is a move of desperation, in order to distract people from the issue at hand; that's a typical leftist maneuver (no matter what you want to call yourself; I can call myself a tangerine, it doesn"t make me one). If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck........

Also, why didn"t you cite that webpage I quoted on, so people can go see exactly WHAT I was responding to?......no "facts", again?? I thought we went over this..

Nevertheless, God DID make the rainbow, and he also made marriage. Both are His, and no one has the right to pervert it, ESPECIALLY people who want to desecrate the name and reputation of the soldiers who died for our freedom! (which was what that was about --- how respectful of you to omit that part...*cough*)

***

You ultimately tried to prove that gay marriage is good because a whole ton of leftist newspapers, major corporations and media personalities said so"..

Really? You know what that is don"t you? It's the "might-is-right" argument: because most people say its good then that means its good, right? ...lol, um, no.

In relation to that, you said you were raised Baptist right? ..then you will certainly appreciate what Jesus said in Matthew 7:13 "..The road to hell is broad, and its gate is wide for the MANY who choose that way."

So, as a Baptist, should you really think that, just because most people think a certain way, that they are right?
Jesus certainly didn"t.

***

I won't waste breath on your questions anymore, because you don't listen.

Rather, I will sum up my argument with a final major Inconsistency on the part of the gay community who try to tell us that "when two people love each other", they should be allowed to marry. Is this really a fair and equitable statement?

Let's find out.

The phrase "when two people love each other" is chock full of discrimination against other people, and I will prove it.

I will break it down for you, word-for-word, and not clump all my words together in one 10,000 word paragraph, okay?
Your welcome.

WHEN - TWO - PEOPLE - LOVE - EACH-OTHER.

1) the word "WHEN" is discriminatory against 15 or 16 year olds (you say 18 only)

2) the word "TWO" is discriminatory against people who desire to marry more than one person.

3) the word "PEOPLE" is discriminatory against people who are "zoophiles" and desire an animal life mate.

4) the word "LOVE" is discriminatory against people who marry for reasons other than love (eg., financial motives)

5) the word(s) "EACH-OTHER" is discriminatory against people who have multiple love interests (eg., their careers)

So you see, the very concept of legalizing "same sex marriage" is fundamentally discriminatory, and yet its purpose was to eliminate discrimination against the LGBT community; and now, even though it has successfully made discrimination against itself illegal, it has also essentially created a whole new wave of discrimination against other classes of people who don't share the same desires as they do.

In summary, if discrimination against individuals should be made illegal (which the advocates of the same sex marriage are striving for) then, upon their own recommendation, same-sex marriage itself should be criminalized, and made illegal, for it, too, discriminates against even smaller minorities of people than itself, and effectively undermines the very principles it is trying to establish.

In other words, it logically pulls down with one hand what the other hand has just put up.

Thank you very much.

***

Note: The above information on the discrimination of same sex marriage can be found here, on Voddie Baucham's "Gay is not the new black", https://youtu.be...
Debate Round No. 5
39 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DeepInThought 2 years ago
DeepInThought
Well now that the debate is officially over, I would like to thank everyone who voted, and commented on the debate. This wouldn't have been nearly as much fun if it weren't for you.
Posted by DeepInThought 2 years ago
DeepInThought
If you ever want to debate again, just come back on, and let me know. perhaps this lying, idiotic, Hippocratic, brainwashed, leftist liberal, might have a few more tricks up my sleeve.
Posted by Epica 2 years ago
Epica
lol, then why didn't you argue he contradicts himself in the first place?

It's not about taking the evidence you present seriously. People will eventually believe you're trolling or not actually interested in a debate. You seem to be interested in attempting to show how 'superior' you are. The subject becomes irrelevant because you've made it irrelevant.
Posted by DeepInThought 2 years ago
DeepInThought
I agree with Epica, on this one.

You came to a sight for intellectual thinkers (nerds), Were not exactly known for getting behind someone who is shouting at us calling us dumb, and ignorant, just because we have different viewpoints.

That's why I beat you, It wasn't because of more liberals vs conservatives, It was because through your rudeness and being so uncivil to myself and all the voters, you took yourself out.

I used the same method of Reverend Wade Watts, and beat you with kindness. Instead of insulting you, I called you a good debater.

Instead of yelling at those who criticized me, I thanked them and took their suggestions to heart. I have shown only love to you throughout this entire debate, while you have displayed hatred. That is why you lost.
Posted by nate_sk 2 years ago
nate_sk
I'm sick of this progressive liberal bullsh*t. People are just getting stupider here.

I'm deleting my account as soon as I can figure it out.

Peace out idiots.
Posted by nate_sk 2 years ago
nate_sk
He said that yeah, and once again, he contradicts himself by saying that homosexuals have rights to have sex with each other and that he cares about people and what they believe; and yet he's okay with people dying horrible disease-riddled deaths.

That's not love if you ask me. True love is telling someone they should stop what they are doing before they hurt themselves.

And if you stop taking me seriously who cares? The facts remain the same.

And if you were smart, you would take them seriously.
Posted by Epica 2 years ago
Epica
Why are you arguing that? Deep conceded "Now I will give you that the probability of a homosexual contracting aids is more likely"

Also, I am referring to your character. GWL-CPA was a highly angry person who was very obsessive about being voted against and acted as if he was narcissistically superior to everyone else. If you don't care that you are associated with that behavior that's fine, but just know people will stop taking you seriously eventually.
Posted by nate_sk 2 years ago
nate_sk
Here you go ignorant fools:

This is a quote from aids.gov:

Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) of all races and ethnicities remain the population most profoundly affected by HIV.
In 2010, the estimated number of new HIV infections among MSM was 29,800, a significant 12% increase from the 26,700 new infections among MSM in 2008.
Although MSM represent about 4% of the male population in the United States, in 2010, MSM accounted for 78% of new HIV infections among males and 63% of all new infections. MSM accounted for 54% of all people living with HIV infection in 2011, the most recent year these data are available.
In 2010, white MSM continued to account for the largest number of new HIV infections (11,200), by transmission category, followed closely by black MSM (10,600).
Posted by nate_sk 2 years ago
nate_sk
And Deep, you must be against yourself then, because you use a good thing like "moral equality" to hate preachers who condemn gay marriage based on the God of Morality.

Such a joke.
Posted by nate_sk 2 years ago
nate_sk
Epica, "Almost as bad" doesn't make sense.
If you refer to my debate then you're biased, ignorant, and didn't even read it.

If you refer to my character, then who cares what you think...
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by OpinionPersom121 2 years ago
OpinionPersom121
DeepInThoughtnate_skTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: both pro and con did a wonderful job. But pro did convince me a little more by creating a symbols through his argument and I found it quite interesting how both pro and con added a little of there own life into this debate. But pro did win me over with both reasoning's and rebuttals
Vote Placed by HermanGomez95 2 years ago
HermanGomez95
DeepInThoughtnate_skTied
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:61 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to Pro. Con became quite rude and condescending as the debate went on (i.e. ?To Leftist Liberal (you): It is apparent you have no desire to reason or to admit the flaws in any of your arguments, so I will briefly re-iterate a few points in plain English so you can understand.?) Pro remained civil, despite Cons poor choices. Spelling and Grammar go to Con. Pro has several spelling mistakes and grammatical errors, some of which Con pointed out. Sources goes to Pro. Despite not formally sourcing his material, he did mention some outside information cordially. (i.e. ?according to the Huffington post?), therefore he did use more sources then con. However, I?d like to suggest that, in the future, if one were to use a source, citing it should follow. Arguments go to Pro. Con?s arguments are a mixture of strawman and slippery slope arguments that lead to many questions and considerable lack of answers. They also, in several cases, fail to address the debate?s question itse
Vote Placed by n7 2 years ago
n7
DeepInThoughtnate_skTied
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:41 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by Sarra 2 years ago
Sarra
DeepInThoughtnate_skTied
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:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Prior Position: I am gay and I want to be able to be legally married one day. Allowing gay marriage to be legal would create 250,000 permanent jobs. *I believe someone who is against homosexuality is not necessarily a bigot. Analysis: Pro has slightly bad grammar. Con has slightly bad grammar. Con, the phrase "homo marriage" is offensive. I prefer the word gay over the word homo when people refer to me (homo has a negative connotation). Con, comparing the legalization of gay marriage to the legalization of bestiality and incest is something only bigots do (round 2). Your bigoted remarks make me vote Pro for better conduct. Seriously? Bestiality again in round 3? I'm done reading slander from a bigot. Neither side uses sources.