The Instigator
KingofHarlem
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Dan4reason
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Obama Must Stop Promoting Homosexuality

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 1 vote the winner is...
Dan4reason
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/13/2014 Category: People
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 702 times Debate No: 52372
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)

 

KingofHarlem

Pro

When Obama publicly congratulated the NBA player for "coming out" he sent a message to youth around the world that "homosexuality is cool."

What else could his purpose have been? If he simply wanted to support the player, a private email would have accomplished this. But Obama wanted much more than this: he wanted to go on record as homosexuality's most influential supporter. He wanted to tell young boys that if they think they have the urge, it's far-better to embrace it than fight it.

And, although there's not a scintilla of evidence to support this claim, it may have some foundation. However, as it stands right now, all it is, is LGBT wishful thinking.

Obama got it all from Ellen Degeneris. He didn't research the scientific literature, he didn't assign a committee to investigate the question, he didn't do his homework. Letting Degeneris fill his head with gay urban myths is not due diligence.

You can't have it both ways. You can't tell kids homosexuality is cool, then say you're not promoting homosexuality
Dan4reason

Con

When Obama publicly congratulated the NBA player for "coming out" he sent a message to youth around the world that "homosexuality is cool."

Not quite. The message he promoted is that it is ok to be gay.

But Obama wanted much more than this: he wanted to go on record as homosexuality's most influential supporter. He wanted to tell young boys that if they think they have the urge, it's far-better to embrace it than fight it.

That is correct.

And, although there's not a scintilla of evidence to support this claim, it may have some foundation.

We know that sexual attraction is emotional and is a biological thing that develops during puberty. You don't choose who you are attracted to, you are. In fact the only way to remove your attraction is chemical castration showing that attraction is a physical non-voluntary process. I can't just decide I am not attracted to women, I just am. Gays are sexually attracted to the opposite sex and cannot choose to be attracted differently.

You will be less happy married to a person you are not attracted to. If gays are attracted to each other, their marriages will be better if they marry each other instead of people they are not attracted to. A healthy sex life is vital to a healthy marriage.

Also, gays marrying straits will not be good for the strait person. Imagine if you are a girl and you are married to a man who don't want to have sex with you and doesn't find you attractive. This will cause problems for your relationship and create a lot of strain on you.

Another path is celibacy. However, celibacy is lonely and miserable. Imagine hardly ever having sex in your life. Sucks.

The best path for gays is the best path for humans in general which is to be in a wonderful relationship with a partner you are attracted to. For gays that partner is someone of the same sex.

The biggest difference between gay marriage and strait marriage is the fact that gays cannot produce kids. However, many marriages are not about kids. For example, I don't have a desire for children.

When gays form relationships, they are not hurting each other and they are not hurting others around them. So there is nothing wrong with what they are doing. Bisexuals can choose between both sexes and are not doing harm in their choices.

So what makes homosexuality wrong? Why should people repress their desires that can bring them happiness in gay relationships?
Debate Round No. 1
KingofHarlem

Pro

QUOTE :==================================================

"...Not quite. The message he promoted is that it is ok to be gay."
==================================================

Buy it's NOT ok to be gay, and this is the heart of the matter. The 20 year-old male who "comes-out" dramatically increases chances of getting HIV. The CDC tells us 75% of all new HIV cases are gay males. How can you possibly say "it's ok to be gay" with stats like that staring you in the face?

================================================== QUOTE:
"...We know that sexual attraction is emotional and is a biological thing that develops during puberty. You don't choose who you are attracted to, you are. In fact the only way to remove your attraction is chemical castration showing that attraction is a physical non-voluntary process. I can't just decide I am not attracted to women, I just am. Gays are sexually attracted to the opposite sex and cannot choose to be attracted differently."
================================================================

Your "born this way" theory was discredited ages ago. The American Psychological Association doesn't support it and never has. And your "Gays are sexually attracted to the opposite sex and cannot choose to be attracted differently" is yet more LGBT junk science not supported by a scintilla of evidence. I've read the scientific literature. You clearly haven't.

===================================================================== QUOTE:
"...You will be less happy married to a person you are not attracted to. If gays are attracted to each other, their marriages will be better if they marry each other instead of people they are not attracted to. A healthy sex life is vital to a healthy marriage."
===================================================================

Gays are actually more miserable married than unmarried. Most gays want nothing to do with same-sex. In Massachusetts 10 years after same sex marriage less than 5% of gay males are married. Why do you think that is? What do these gay males know you don't?
Dan4reason

Con

Buy it's NOT ok to be gay, and this is the heart of the matter. The 20 year-old male who "comes-out" dramatically increases chances of getting HIV. The CDC tells us 75% of all new HIV cases are gay males. How can you possibly say "it's ok to be gay" with stats like that staring you in the face?

First off, HIV happens when you engage in risky sexual behavior. One can avoid HIV by being safe gay or not. Also, taking the change of getting AIDS is worth the love you find in a relationship with someone you are attracted to. If there was a 1 in 20 chance that I would get AIDS from a relationship with a woman, I would still do it because I would never find satisfaction with a man and celibacy is no way to life. The same goes for gays. Also a minority of gays have HIV.
Your "born this way" theory was discredited ages ago. The American Psychological Association doesn't support it and never has. And your "Gays are sexually attracted to the opposite sex and cannot choose to be attracted differently" is yet more LGBT junk science not supported by a scintilla of evidence. I've read the scientific literature. You clearly haven't.

No sources: check.
No evidence: check.
Only claims: check.

I already showed that sexual attraction is not chosen. If it was, then you could choose to like someone of the same sex if you are strait. Gays are sexually attracted to the same sex by their own self-report. If you doubt me, then go ask a gay person. Ask him if he is sexually attracted to women. He will likely say no. Take a look at this link below. It has stories of gays and their description of their attraction.
http://www.experienceproject.com...

Here is one such story:
I always felt like I was different. When all the other boys started noticing girls I was still playing my video games - I just didn't know what was so special about them.

As the time went on I realized that the ones I like aren't girls - but boys.

I though at first that it was just a phase, that perhaps every boy feels like that at one time. I even tried to get myself to like girls. All to no avail.

I admitted it to myself when I was 16. I knew about then that what I feel like can't be changed - that it's there to stay forever. And I got scared. In my country being gay is not only sin, if you're gay you're considered sub-human. No possible penance. I was once told that the only way to "heal" a homosexual is with a bullet through the head.

So that's why I'm hiding it. No one would understand. Not my family or people I go to school with. I dread what would happen if anyone found out.

It is really revolting how some of us treat people who are different like trash just because they are different.
Gays are actually more miserable married than unmarried. Most gays want nothing to do with same-sex. In Massachusetts 10 years after same sex marriage less than 5% of gay males are married. Why do you think that is? What do these gay males know you don't?

Where is the source that gays are more miserable married than unmarried? Where is the source that says that only 5% marry? Even if only a few of them marry at least they are being benefited. I have a question for you. If only 5% of people took advantage of their right to bear arms would you be fine with a gun ban for that reason alone?

In the US 2% of hetero couples get divorced while 1.1% of gay couples get divorced annually (1). Well so much for the misery thing.

1: http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
KingofHarlem

Pro

[... First off, HIV happens when you engage in risky sexual behavior. One can avoid HIV by being safe gay or not. Also, taking the change of getting AIDS is worth the love you find in a relationship with someone you are attracted to. If there was a 1 in 20 chance that I would get AIDS from a relationship with a woman, I would still do it because I would never find satisfaction with a man and celibacy is no way to life. The same goes for gays. Also a minority of gays have HIV.]

Male-to-male sex is "risky sexual behavior." There apparently is no safe way to do it. And HIV is just one of the afflictions you can get. This is the dirty little secret about male homosexuality gays don't want you to know. They tell us "condoms are safe sex," but that's admitting their way of having sex can only be safe if the two bodies are hermetically sealed. Obviously, if not hermatically sealed you'll get sick. What does that tell you, Con?

Add to this the panoply of afflictions caused by anal sex that have nothing to do with HIV. You seem blissfully unaware of these. Or maybe like the ostricth, you're sticking your head in the sand to pretend they don't exist. Consider the following from a paper by Dr. John Diggs:
https://www.google.com...

"Anal intercourse is the sine qua non of sex for many gay men.22 Yet human physiology makes it clear that the body was not designed to accommodate this activity. The rectum is significantly different from the vagina with regard to suitability for penetration by a penis. The vagina has natural lubricants and is supported by a network of muscles. It is composed of a mucus membrane with a multi-layer stratified squamous epithelium that allows it to endure friction without damage and to resist the immunological actions caused by semen and sperm. In comparison, the anus is a delicate mechanism of small muscles that comprise an "exit-only" passage. With repeated trauma, friction and stretching, the sphincter loses its tone and its ability to maintain a tight seal. Consequently, anal intercourse leads to leakage of fecal material that can easily become chronic.

The end result is that the fragility of the anus and rectum, along with the immunosuppressive effect of ejaculate, make anal-genital intercourse a most efficient manner of transmitting HIV and other infections. The list of diseases found with extraordinary frequency among male homosexual practitioners as a result of anal intercourse is alarming:

Anal Cancer
Chlamydia trachomatis
Cryptosporidium
Giardia lamblia
Herpes simplex virus
Human immunodeficiency virus
Human papilloma virus
Isospora belli
Microsporidia
Gonorrhea
Viral hepatitis types B & C
Syphilis25


And you tell us that "born this way" is scientific fact, but have yet to cite this. Instead, you demand I provide evidence it isn't. Not the way debate works. You made the claim -- cite it!

[...I already showed that sexual attraction is not chosen. If it was, then you could choose to like someone of the same sex if you are strait. Gays are sexually attracted to the same sex by their own self-report. If you doubt me, then go ask a gay person. Ask him if he is sexually attracted to women. He will likely say no. Take a look at this link below. It has stories of gays and their description of their attraction.]

You made the claim sexual attraction is not choice, but here again, you did not provide a scintilla of evidence to support this claim. Moreover, I informed you the American Psychological Association does not support "born this way" but you choose to ignore this. Why?

Each one of the ten gay couples who got married in Massachusetts the first day of the same-sex law are divorced. They're also very angry. They feel the LGBT community lied to them about same-sex marriage. The notion that two men can live happily together as man and wife is an artifact of gay junk science. People like you have fell for it hook, line, and sinker. How about a farmer and his mule? Using your logic, they would make a happily-married couple too. The point is, you ignore the fact that these LGBT claims are all pipe dreams. You never stopped and asked yourself "Why do I believe two men can make a happily married couple?" "What evidence is there that this is so?"


That's called ignorance, Con. dangerous ignorance. You're telling young people that two men can live happily as married, and you haven't invested a nano second in research on the point.

Or perhaps you have. Tell us how you went about researching the question, Con.
Dan4reason

Con

"And you tell us that "born this way" is scientific fact, but have yet to cite this."

I provided logical arguments for the claim that homosexuals have sexual attraction for the same sex. I argued that sexual attraction is not chosen by appealing to each of our individual experiences of our sexual attraction and the fact that we can't change our attraction through our will. This argument has not been contested by my opponent.

I also provided the unanswered logical argument that homosexuals are sexually attracted to the same sex and not to the opposite sex by citing their own self-reports of their experiences. If homosexuals were attracted to the opposite sex, wouldn't they find no satisfaction in having sex with people they are not attracted to? How many people would abstain from sex with women if they were attracted to them?

Even though I don't have to provide scientific evidence because my logical evidence is strong enough, I will provide some anyway. In the latest research gay brothers are more likely to share Xq28 genes than strait brothers. There is also a genetic region on Chromosome 8 what seems to predict being gay. Studies have found that being gay is 30-40% genetic while the rest is environmental such as the hormones a baby is exposed to in the womb (4,5).

"Instead, you demand I provide evidence it isn't."

Well you are claiming that gays can choose who they are attracted to. This is a claim and you must back it up.

"Moreover, I informed you the American Psychological Association does not support "born this way" but you choose to ignore this."

Please site is source.

Is Anal Sex is Dangerous

Honestly I takes this argument as seriously as the claims that masturbation will sterilize you. There are health risks for anal sex just like there are health risks for real sex, sky diving, running, or medications. However, if you are careful, you can reduce risks.

Some steps that can be taken is use plenty of lubricants to avoid tissue tearing, don't do oral sex after anal sex, relax before anal sex like take a warm bath, stop if anal sex is painful, make sure the anus is clean before anal sex, see your doctor if anything usual starts happening, and be gentle when doing it (1).

Anal Sex and Disease

As mentioned before, the risk of disease is much more tolerable than never being in a fulfilling relationship with a partner you are sexually attracted to. This argument went unrefuted. Also unrefuted is the argument that safe sex can reduce disease.

Heterosexual sex also has risk factors for STDs. 65 million Americans have an STD and 1 in 4 Americans will get an STD in their lifetime. 45 million Americans have genital herpes (2).

In order to reduce your risk of AIDS whether your are gay or strait or reduce your risk of STDs in general you should follow some common sense tips. First, be monogamous. Having sex with a lot of people is going to increase your risk. Get tested and know your partner's status. Use condoms consistently and correctly (3). We don't have to have the high rates of STDs whether gay or not. Gay people do not have to give up sex with people they are attracted to.

By the way, you don't have to give up running to avoid the potential health risks or running. You don't have to give up sex to avoid it's health risks. While my opponent certainly has a lot of interesting opinions, I would not consider him medically informed on anal sex and sexually transmitted diseases.

One interesting point is that promoting gay marriage will also promote gay monogomy and will reduce the rate of STDs among gays, so why are people against gay marriage again if they constantly cite STDs? Whether conservatives like it or not gays will have sex, lets make this marital sex.

Gay Marriages Work

I have already cited statistics that gay marriages are almost half as likely to end in divorce with an annual 1.1% divorce rate compared to a 2% divorce rate for strait couples. All my opponent has done is provide an uncited reference to ten gay couples that have gotten divorced. That is a really bad sample.

In Denmark gay divorce rates are significantly lower than strait couples. In the UK gay divorce after 30 months is less than 1% (6). In the UK, 2.5% of gay couples divorce after 4 years while it is 5.5% for strait couples (7).

1: http://www.webmd.com...
2: http://www.stdtestexpress.com...
3: http://aids.gov...
4: http://www.theaustralian.com.au...#
5: http://www.telegraph.co.uk...
6: http://en.wikipedia.org...
7: http://www.advocate.com...
Debate Round No. 3
KingofHarlem

Pro

I provided logical arguments for the claim that homosexuals have sexual attraction for the same sex. I argued that sexual attraction is not chosen by appealing to each of our individual experiences of our sexual attraction and the fact that we can't change our attraction through our will. This argument has not been contested by my opponent.


"we can't change our attraction through our will"

Says who? Who told you that, Con? You keep making these sweeping claims without offering a scintilla of scientific evidence. Your supposed "logical arguments are entertaining, but why can't you grasp they're not enough? Why cant you grasp that if there was any validity to them you'd be able to present scientific cites?

Do you even know what a scientific cite is, Con?

"Well you are claiming that gays can choose who they are attracted to. This is a claim and you must back it up."

I never said, implied, or suggested gays can choose who they are attracted to. Are you resorting to outright lying now? I said there is no scientitic evidence to support your claim that gays can't choose who they're attracted -- that the claim is LGBT junk science. In otherwords, you can't support your claim, Con, so what you do now is engage in is chicanery. There is no scientific evidence supporting your claim that gays can't choose who they're attracted to. Please stop making the claim or present evidence to support it. It's really that simple.

Is Anal Sex is Dangerous

Honestly I takes this argument as seriously as the claims that masturbation will sterilize you. There are health risks for anal sex just like there are health risks for real sex, sky diving, running, or medications. However, if you are careful, you can reduce risks.

Some steps that can be taken is use plenty of lubricants to avoid tissue tearing, don't do oral sex after anal sex, relax before anal sex like take a warm bath, stop if anal sex is painful, make sure the anus is clean before anal sex, see your doctor if anything usual starts happening, and be gentle when doing it (1).

500,000 have died from anal sex, gay males make up 75% of all new HIV cases, all this and you would have us believe male-to-male anal sex is no more dangerous than straight sex? Are you serious? And why do you believe in the LGBT notion of "safe-sex?" If male-to-male anal sex can be made safe, why are gay males still dropping like flies?

Honestly, you need to stop repeating your LGBT talking points and check out the scientific literiture. Nothing you claim is orginal; all of it is warmed-over LGBT talking points. And then you so blantantly ignore the scientific evidence I present. Earlier I linked you to a paper by Dr. John Diggs. The paper was a in-depth study of "The Hazards of Gay Sex." One of the points made is that with frequent anal sex the anal/rectum subsystem is compromised. It becomes dysfunctional, the seal is eroded and these men must start wearing diapers.

Diggs goes on to explain that the anus was not designed to withstand the trauma produced by anal sex pounding. This is yet another dirty little secret the LGBT community don't want the public to know -- anal sex causes anal/rectal dysfunction.

Gay Marriages Work

I have already cited statistics that gay marriages are almost half as likely to end in divorce with an annual 1.1% divorce rate compared to a 2% divorce rate for strait couples. All my opponent has done is provide an uncited reference to ten gay couples that have gotten divorced. That is a really bad sample.

No, gay marriages don't work. And that's because gay males are the most promiscuous creatures on the planet and find it intolerable. Gay culture is based on promiscurity, not traditional marriage ideals. Gay bars, bath houses, Fire Island, the Greenich Village Docks, the gay porn industry, gay escort services, Even "The Advocate", the national gay news paper, are all a celebration of gay sex. You don't know this, Con, because you've never heard of these places. Likewise, you've never read Guy Rotolo or Randy Shiltz. You're here parroting LGBT talking points you've never researched.

Young, fast track gays want nothing to do with same-sex marriage. This explains why after ten years of it in Massachusetts 95% of gay males remain unmarried. It's the older gays who want it -- the gays nobody wants. What younger gays want is access to boys -- that's why they're for same-sex marriage: they know once it becomes law it gets them into the schools where they can recruit.
Dan4reason

Con

No offense, but you are new to this site and I don't think you understand how these debates work. When someone makes an argument, you have to address it. Else if it goes unrefuted and your opponent will be more likely to win on convincing arguments. You also need to provide sources for all scientific arguments. Sources are 2 points while arguments is 3 so backing up your claims with sources is vital.

"Your supposed "logical arguments [about gay marriage] are entertaining, but why can't you grasp they're not enough?"

You didn't even refute these arguments. Saying that they are not enough does not mean that you have actually shown that they are not enough. As mentioned before, there are a lot of things that we know outside science like consciousness, politics, and philosophy. Even math doesn't use scientific evidence, it uses logic. So in many cases logic is enough and I showed that in the last round.

"Why cant you grasp that if there was any validity to them you'd be able to present scientific cites? Do you even know what a scientific cite is, Con?"

Honestly, you are going to lose conduct points for saying stuff like this. I have written research papers for the Department of Energy, so yes, I know what a scientific cite is. However, this is not a research paper. I provided news articles from reputable sources to scientific work to back up my claim that gay sexual attraction is not chosen.

Also you have not cited one scientific study in the entire course of this debate refuting gay sexual attraction not being a choice.

"I never said, implied, or suggested gays can choose who they are attracted to. Are you resorting to outright lying now?"

I apologize for the mistake. I just inferred you did by the fact that you have spent this entire debate trying to refute my arguments that gays don't choose their orientation.

"500,000 have died from anal sex, gay males make up 75% of all new HIV cases, all this and you would have us believe male-to-male anal sex is no more dangerous than straight sex?"

These people did not die from the rigors of anal sex, only from AIDS from gay sex. As said before, only a minority get AIDS and even fewer die from it. Also, it is better to take the risk of disease than to be sexually and emotionally unfulfilled by not being in a relationship with someone you are attracted to. I have made refutations before and they have not be answered. I just hear the same old refuted arguments over and over again.

"And why do you believe in the LGBT notion of "safe-sex?" If male-to-male anal sex can be made safe, why are gay males still dropping like flies?"

The answer to that is rather obvious. Just like with strait people, many gay people do not have safe sex.

One of the points made is that with frequent anal sex the anal/rectum subsystem is compromised. It becomes dysfunctional, the seal is eroded and these men must start wearing diapers.

Mr. Digg's paper is interesting but I could not find any reference to it from mainstream sources. I could only find it from evangelical and conservative sources. I have a mainstream source in the last round saying that anal sex health risks can be reduced with proper use. I would like a citation on what percent of gays have to wear diapers from gay sex. Without that there is no basis for saying that it is a serious risk.

Nothing you claim is original; all of it is warmed-over LGBT talking points.

Funny, because I can find all your talking points with a simple google search. I do not care about originality. I care about presenting the best arguments. I try to be effective not creative.

No, gay marriages don't work. And that's because gay males are the most promiscuous creatures on the planet and find it intolerable. Gay culture is based on promiscurity, not traditional marriage ideals. Gay bars, bath houses, Fire Island, the Greenich Village Docks, the gay porn industry, gay escort services,

I already provided a source that gay marriages are twice as successful as strait marriages. Males tend to be promiscuous, which is why gay males are. Maybe a better approach is to encourage monogamy and safe sex among gays instead of telling them they shouldn't have the sex they enjoy. You are advocating a far too radical solution. Having gay marriage is one of those moderate ways. Already Massachusetts has gotten 5% of their gays married in 10 years. Maybe with more promotion encouraging gay marriage instead of condemning it we can get that number up higher.

Young, fast track gays want nothing to do with same-sex marriage. This explains why after ten years of it in Massachusetts 95% of gay males remain unmarried. It's the older gays who want it -- the gays nobody wants.

I will need a source saying that most of the marriages are between older gays. Also, apparently somebody does want these older gays, other older gays, which is why they are getting married. Also, this is kind of insulting to older folks finding some happiness in marriage. Why exactly is this something we want to take away?

It has only been ten years since marriage has been available to them. They lack the thousands of years of culture and tradition of marriage because marriage has not been legally provided to them until very recently. No wonder so few get married because gay marriage has been nothing but condemned for thousands of years. We should start encouraging gay marriage and monogamy in general.

Also, as said before is low participation a reason to take away a right? Would it be fine to take away gun right sor freedom to legal defense if only 5% of people actually used them? At least this right is helping a small number of people.
Debate Round No. 4
KingofHarlem

Pro

First thiings first... Whenever one of your LGBT claims are challanged, rather than provide scientific evidence to support it, you reply with fumbling logic like the following:

===================================================

"Also you have not cited one scientific study in the entire course of this debate refuting gay sexual attraction not being a choice."
====================================================

In other words, because I can't or won't provide a scientific study refuting your claim that gay sexual attraction is not choice, your claim is correct?

Don't you think when you make a claim you should be the one to support it? Why do you think your claim becomes valid if I can't or won't debunk it?

Do you not grasp how the scientific method works? One doesn't say "E = mc 2 because nobody has debunked it." One says E = mc 2 because my math proves it.

But the larger point here is your "If you can't debunk it, gays are born not made" thinking is lifted directly from the LBGT agenda, an agenda geared to popular consumption, not scientitic inquiry.

Present your evidence showing gays are "born that way." I know you can't because I've studied the question and the evidence doesn't exist. But prove me wrong -- give us a cite.

SUMMATION:

I've shown that when you promote same-sex marriage, you're promoting homosexuality. All you've shown, Con, is your mastery of long-debunked LGBT talking points:
("Born this way!")

I've presented piles of new and original ideas. You haven't presented any. From my responses readers have learned about the true hazards of gay sex. They learned that the anus-rectum becomes dysfunctional with the frequent trauma caused by anal sex pounding. This is not in you LGBT talking points so you had no rebut for it.

I've shown how homosexuality culture is based on promiscuity. Google "gay pride parade" and count how many erect penises symbols you see. Better yet, read Rotolo's "The Etiology of Homosexuality."

For 70 years the American Psychological Association called homosexuality a mental disorder. Then because of political pressure they said it wasn't. That's why they changed their opinion. If you disagree, present the new science that caused the APA to change its opinion. There is none. It was changed purely due to political pressure.

Your performance has been dismal and that's because you presented nothing new or original. In every instance, Con, all you've done is parroted long-debunked LGBT talking points. Then when it was pointed out to you these talking points are not supported by science you resorted to chicanery like "I used logic to make my point" and "Where's your scientific evidence disproving my claims?"

Honestly, do you think we're playing a game, Con? This is a serious topic, a topic you should at least research and study before making the simplistic claims you've made.

Same-sex marriage has turned Massachusetts into a predator's paradise. Under guise of "Stop gay bullying" adult gay males we know nothing about now have full access to our schools. Young boys are being told they're "gay" "bisexual" "transgender" and there's nothing they can do about it except put on a dress and join the party.

You never picked up a book on homosexuality in your life, never bothered to learn about gay culture, never visited an AIDS ward, never understood why anal sex is so morbidly unhealthy until I told you.

Meanwhile, you continue to tell children homosexuality is safe, normal, and as wholesome as Mom's apple pie.

You need to stop poisoning the minds of children with your gay activist propaganda.

A mind is a terrible think to waste.








Dan4reason

Con

Well this was certainly an interesting debate. However in this round my opponent failed to present any new arguments and just presented opinions and personal attacks. So I really don't have anything to say in this round. I said what I had to say in the previous rounds. I do want to provide some inspirational gay marriage quotes. You don't have to read them if you don't want to. I just want to end this debate on a positive note.

"This is my doctrine: Give every other human being every right you claim for yourself."
R13; Robert G. Ingersoll, The Liberty of Man, Woman and Child

"So, let me get this straight-- You want me to stop being a lesbian and being attracted to women because it is a 'sin'? Last time I checked, when you lie you are sinning. Sure, I could tell you I am no longer a lesbian or that I am no longer attracted to women and am straight, or I could even tell you the moon is made of cheese. I could tell you many things, but the moon will still not be made of cheese, and I will still not be attracted to men. I could tell you a lie in order to placate you, but isn"t the truth supposed to set me free? I choose truth over lies any day of the week. "
R13; Cristina Marrero

"We cannot keep turning our backs on gay and lesbian Americans. I have fought too hard and too long against discrimination based on race and color not to stand up against discrimination based on sexual orientation."
R13; John E Lewis

Some time ago there was a story of a mother who disowned her son for being gay. Her father found out and wrote this letter:

Dear Christine,

I"m disappointed in you as a daughter. You're correct that we have a "shame in the family," but mistaken about what it is.

Kicking Chad out of your home simply because he told you he was gay is the real "abomination" here. A parent disowning her child is what goes "against nature."

The only intelligent thing I heard you saying in all this was that "you didn"t raise your son to be gay." Of course you didn"t. He was born this way and didn't choose it any more than he being left-handed. You however, have made a choice of being hurtful, narrow-minded, and backward. So, while we are in the business of disowning our children, I think I'll take this moment to say goodbye to you. I now have a fabulous (as the gays put it) grandson to raise, and I don"t have time for heart-less B-word of a daughter.

If you find your heart, give us a call.

" Dad

http://www.newsmax.com...
Debate Round No. 5
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by oculus_de_logica 2 years ago
oculus_de_logica
KingofHarlemDan4reasonTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: All right: several things: Pro resorted to Ad hominem later in the round and turned a blind eye when challenged to actually support his claim. Conduct lost there. Note: A claim is a positive statement. "Being gay is not a choice" is a negative statement, saying that it is not correct means you are making the positive statement that needs proof. Sources go to Con, as he had a plethora of strong resources while pro had only a few. And finally, pro did not properly refute all that many of con's argument and simply dismissed them without proper rebuttals or counter-evidence. that lead him repeating his own words again and again even once they had been disproved or challenged. Con however managed to debunk next to all points Con made in one way or another.