The Instigator
Vertigo
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Jerry947
Con (against)
Winning
3 Points

Lesbian,Gay,Bisexual and Transgender Rights.

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 3 votes the winner is...
Jerry947
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/7/2016 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 571 times Debate No: 84694
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (3)

 

Vertigo

Pro

Many believe that they should be granted their basic human rights by the government.
People are solely declined their rights based upon their sexuality.
With the LGBT community on a high rise, increasing rapidly, many plead for equal rights.
Lesbian and Gay couples are rather harshly discriminated with at least 42% of LGBT supporters/members have reported living in an environment where they felt unwelcomed or unsafe.
The fight for LGBT rights have been debated for a long time, whether or not to allow certain rights to certain members of America. The LGBT community should have all rights such as heterosexual citizens are granted. A sexuality and lifestyle is not what defines a person.

The LGBT community is human too, the only difference between anyone else is the difference in sexual orientation. America has been wrenched from discrimination that would have once completely ruined society if there hadn't ever been a change, waging a war upon our selves, and due to just the difference in thinking and right and wrongs, a childish dispute has pulled us back into the pit of where we have the risk of destroying each other once again.

"All men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Declaration of Independence, IN CONGRESS, July 4th, 1776.
The refusal to permit the rights to every American citizen counterworks the Declaration of Independence, violating the right to the Pursuit of Happiness and restraining the Declaration of Independence to only certain citizens of America, when it was surely applied to this country as a whole. How do you justify detaining an inalienable right that you were given at birth? When a change was applied, so were the rules and you are no longer eligible for the rights you had back then?
You can't.

Promotion of sexual and gender disorders and the building of family structure worries many when it comes to the right of being able to adopt within the LGBT relationship. The investigation on the impacts of having same-sex parents on a child has been supplied for the past three decades. Adoption isn't the only way for a Lesbian or Gay couple obtain a child to raise, there are options such as being involved in opposite sex marriages and/or relationships, alternative insemination, foster parenting, or taking in place a surrogate, in some states all of these are banned or unavailable to same-sex couples. On the topic of the mental health of a child being unstable with same-sex parents was proved wrong a study performed in Australia and published in the journal of BMC health." (LGBT) Parents provide an equally supportive and healthy environment for their children as heterosexual parents," taken from Dr. Fran Walfish.
Jerry947

Con

Part One:

It was stated that "Lesbian and Gay couples are rather harshly discriminated with at least 42% of LGBT supporters/members have reported living in an environment where they felt unwelcome or unsafe." This is completely irrelevant to the topic at hand and is an emotional argument so therefore I will not address it. But another statement made a few sentences later does need some explanation. My opponent claims that "sexuality and lifestyle is not what defines a person." Of course the sexuality of a person and their lifestyle helps determine who the person is. If a person chooses to kill someone, doesn't that make them a murderer? If a person cheats on a test, doesn't that make that person a cheater? If a person practices homosexual behavior, it does help define who the person is whether you like it or not.

It was then stated that "the LGBT community is human too, the only difference between anyone else is the difference in sexual orientation." While I see so many flaws in this one statement my biggest problem with it is that this does nothing to say that the LGBT should have those specific rights. A persons feelings about what rights people have are meaningless. Like my opponent will later say, rights come from God.

Then here comes the most interesting part in my opponents opening argument. They claim that since the Declaration of Independence claims that people have the right to the pursuit of happiness, they should be able to have LGBT rights. The first problem with that statement is that the Declaration has no impact of court decisions (http://candst.tripod.com...). The Constitution does have an impact on court decisions (obviously) and the pursuit of happiness is not given to people. It was replaced by property. The second problem with this argument is that the founding fathers had absolutely no intention of implying LGBT rights when they spoke of the pursuit of happiness (http://blog.dictionary.com...). They were using it in a sense that meant that people had the right to be successful and be happy. If you need more proof here is what Ben Franklin said: "The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself." He was speaking of success. The founders of this country had no intention of supporting LGBT rights simply because they did not believe it was a right given by God. Many of them were Christian by the way.

So if not from the Constitution or the Declaration of independence...where do you think these rights come from. They certainly do not come from the God many of the founders believed in. Even the deists would have been alarmed with the idea of LGBT rights.

The only real argument my opponent has for LGBT rights is that they feel it is a right people should have. And this means nothing and has no affect on people. I understand the emotional appeal to my opponent's argument but there really isn't any substance within it. People do not have the right to do whatever they want. Not even in the United States.

Part Two:

Here are some dangers to homosexuality.

1. Homosexuals are more likely to have mental health issues. Link: exodusglobalalliance.org/ishomosexualityhealthyp60.php

2. There are higher sexual molestation rates among homosexuals. See link above.

3. Then there is the matter of Sexual promiscuity. This helps support the spread of disease and the homosexual community does not do well with this at all. Over 83% of homosexuals have over 50 partners in their lifetime. Link: Same as above.

4. The arguments my opponent has used could literally be used for "voyeurism, necrophilia, bestiality, polygamy, incest, exhibitionism, fetishes, frotterism, masochism, sadism, etc.? (https://carm.org...). Homosexuality is dangerous whether people want to admit it or not.

Why support something that is so dangerous to society?

With all of this said I thank my opponent for creating the debate and I am excited to see how things turn out.
Debate Round No. 1
Vertigo

Pro

"My opponent claims that "sexuality and lifestyle is not what defines a person." Of course the sexuality of a person and their lifestyle helps determine who the person is." I will address this, however this particular statement displays and describes actions, not the terms of sexuality inflicted with personality nor a lifestyle. As you continued on, you also described ACTIONS. Not what I had previously mentioned.

Though this is nearly irrelevant, there is a story of a homosexual lesbian couple. If you had read it clearly, the story of Ruth and Naomi and her feelings were actually proposed and celebrated, not condemned, no horribile death or torture, nor' "smiting." I suppose. Her actions were NOT condemned.
I do respect your beliefs and such, and that is if you're of the Christain Religion (as I assume, and if you aren't feel free to correct me so I can strengthen my argument.)

As for Homosexuals(ality.) being dangerous, how does it endanger you..? Perhaps if you managed to worry about yourself, and not that of ones intentions, which has no involvement with you, perhaps you wouldn't feel threated or under attack.

"The unalienable rights that are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence could just as well have been inalienable, which means the same thing. Inalienable or unalienable refers to that which CANNOT be given away or taken away."
The LGBT community has every right to be available to these as anyone else.
Jerry947

Con

It was stated that I have described "actions, not the terms of sexuality inflicted with personality nor a lifestyle." But a persons actions do show how a person lives. If I were to mention a person that was the first man on the moon and has recently passed away...the first man you would think of is Neil Armstrong. The actions of a person do help us understand a person and what they are interested in. Feel free to address this later but it is pretty straight forward.

Your story about the lesbian couple was irrelevant. And I hope you weren't trying to tell me what happened in the Bible because that is not even close to being true. You realize that Naomi was Ruth's mother in law and she helped Ruth get a husband? See Ruth Chapters 1-4 for details. And yes, I am a Christian who knows his Bible well.

When discussing what rights people have, you shouldn't do it based on the minority (LGBT=2% of US population) or base the decision on how it directly affects you. It is essential to think about the society as a whole. This is something people in our age aren't very good at. As I have showed you, homosexuality does endanger society and it does affect me in some ways. For example, I have to be a witness to the huge sin every day and I have to see more people with mental health disorders and etc...

Lastly, it was said that "Inalienable or unalienable refers to that which CANNOT be given away or taken away.
The LGBT community has every right to be available to these as anyone else." I understand what the word unalienable means and that is not the problem. The issue is that the founding fathers did not see LGBT rights as an unalienable right as I have already shown you. You completely ignored what I said and now you are just asserting with no evidence that it is an unalienable right. And that is the main problem. You keep asserting that LGBT have these rights but this is only an opinion of yours and it has no affect on society.

In order to prove that LGBT have rights...you must stop arguing your opinion and give an actual reason supported by the constitution. The problem is that you can't do this as I have already shown.
Debate Round No. 2
Vertigo

Pro

You are correct, neither does the constitution or the Declaration of Independence directly state that LGBT should have rights, but more so it never said that they shouldn't. Your arguments are valid.
You have mentioned the religion of Christianity, and the one and supreme god, and if I cant argue highly enough with the legal documents of America, then I will bring the bible into this.
As it says in the Declaration of Independence the bible states that all man is created equal.
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."Galatians 3:28
This is stated in not only the Bible, but in the Declaration of Independence.
If it was repeated plenty, then it must be imported.
(IRRELEVANT-On another note, there is a word that is mentioned in the text as where Naomi loved Ruth as Adam loved Eve and even mentioned words that were said, were displayed and portrayed as sermons and such at a christian wedding.)

The Declaration of Independence was created for America and the people who lived within it, so how does it not exactly pertain to them?

The only argument you desperately hold onto is the fact that homosexuality is "dangerous." and assuming that the Declaration doesn't apply to all of those.
If it doesn't apply to them, then it doesn't apply to you.
Jerry947

Con

a. It was stated "You are correct, neither does the constitution or the Declaration of Independence directly state that LGBT should have rights, but more so it never said that they shouldn't." The fact that the founders of the country didn't add LGBT rights to the constitution shows that people do not have these rights. If the founders wanted people to have these rights, they would have added them in to the constitution.

b. Yes...the Bible does say that all people are one in Christ Jesus. But this verse does nothing to prove that people have LGBT rights. Lets remember what the Bible says about homosexuality. It says that "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination," (Leviticus 18:22). The Bible is clearly against the sin of homosexuality.

c. As for the story about Ruth...I went back just now and read the first chapter and I still have no idea what you are talking about. Nothing there in the story indicates that they were lesbians. Again...Naomi (her mother in law) helped Ruth get a husband. There was nothing between Naomi and Ruth in the same way your indicating.

d. The Declaration was created for the Americans. But the declaration did not state that people have LGBT rights as I have already shown. And nor would it matter if it did since the Declaration is not used to make court decisions.

e. Lastly, it was stated that "the only argument you desperately hold onto is the fact that homosexuality is "dangerous." and assuming that the Declaration doesn't apply to all of those." This is not true at all. I am worried about the dangers of homosexuality (as all people should), and I know that the Christian God is against homosexuality, and I know that LGBT rights were not unalienable rights that the founding fathers claimed people had. I am not desperately holding on to anything. My argument is pretty solid.
Debate Round No. 3
Vertigo

Pro

Vertigo forfeited this round.
Jerry947

Con

I will forfeit as well to make things fair.
Debate Round No. 4
Vertigo

Pro

Vertigo forfeited this round.
Jerry947

Con

Nothing more to say.
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Vertigo 1 year ago
Vertigo
Huge apologies to those who are voting and such. Went inactive due to loss of internet connection and plenty more. ANYWAY. This was a very fun debate and I enjoyed it, and I apologize for not being able to finish it.
Posted by phantomdy 1 year ago
phantomdy
*sigh* why cant people just accept each other. Its sad it truly Is despite my age I've seen much. The good, the bad, the happy, and the sad. After all the sh*t people as a whole have dealt with. people are still so bias so hateful. i wish to state this. If you Kill a tyrant who murders, rapes, and destroys every thing. And as he/she is about to kill someone and you kill them to save the innocent. does that make you a murderer, a protector, or a hero which because you can only be one. you can't determine who or what a person is just by his actions or thoughts alone. so you as a human being HAVE NO RIGHT to judge who may not have rights so every one deserves equality. until proven other wise. and so homosexuals, heterosexuals, Asexual s, and so on should be equal
Posted by Vertigo 1 year ago
Vertigo
e Vogue, Ariane De Vogue. "Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Same-sex Marriage Nationwide." N.p., n.d. Web.

Robison, Jennifer. What Percentage of the Population Is Gay? N.p., n.d. Web.

"Broadening the Quest for Gay Rights." Los Angeles Times 2015 jul 13: A.17 DB - SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 14 Dec. 2015.

"Do Same Sex Parents Impact The Mental Health Of Their Children? Some US States Say 'Yes' And Prohibit LGBT Adoption." Medical Daily. N.p., 25 June 2013. Web. 07 Jan. 2016.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 1 year ago
U.n
VertigoJerry947Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
VertigoJerry947Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff many times, so conduct to Con.
Vote Placed by lannan13 1 year ago
lannan13
VertigoJerry947Tied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture