The Instigator
Gondun
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
steven8
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Religious Freedom should be upheld alongside Gay Marriage

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/16/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 652 times Debate No: 77764
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)

 

Gondun

Pro

This is a debate about whether or not the United States should uphold certain religious freedoms regarding homosexuality. Specifically, I believe that people/businesses should be allowed to deny service to homosexual couples on the basis of religious beliefs, but only when that service relates directly to their homosexual marriage and/or family (ie wedding planning, marriage services, couples counseling, adoption services). Things like refusing service at a fast food restaurant because of the customer's sexual orientation do not fall under this category. If you have any questions about what I'm referring to, please ask in the comments before accepting the debate. I reserve the right to clarify which services are included, within reason.
steven8

Con

I am a Christian so obviously I do not support homosexuality and I voted against gay marriage. However I do believe marriage should be a state issue and I have a few Christian friends who are well educated and agree with me. I Believe if homosexual people want to get married than fine. But do not force churches to marry gay couples, I also believe it is wrong to deliberately target Christian owned bakeries and then attack them when they refuse to bake a cake. I believe that is hypocritical of the gay community and I am upset that they only target Christians for this gay civil rights movement. Why are they not targeting Muslims, why are they not focusing more on Mormons or Scientologists or Hindus, why are they focusing their efforts on the protestant Christian community? and if you don't believe me just watch the news it is almost always a Christian owned bakeries or photographers and remember that ridiculous attack on the Christian owned pizzeria. Out of all the other businesses they deliberately chose a Christian owned business. I understand that they are a public business, but why not go after other anti-gay establishments. It's not just Christians who are against gay marriage.

Why is there zero outrage in the media about Islamic countries that are murdering gay people. Especially after the supreme court ruling. A few Islamic countries protested their anger by killing gay people in their communities they even made videos of these heinous crimes but of course the media just sweeps that under the rug because the bigger threat is conservatives and Christians.

But putting that aside. There is a way to have marriage, without violating the religious rights of Christians and other religious groups. There is no need to force the church to marry gay couples. As I said before, I believe marriage is a state matter, and the church and state should not be mixed. Several Christians do not like that, but I know many well educated who agree that church should stay out of it. The government does not need to impose on the church in order to have gay marriage. Likewise some churches accept gay marriage, they're not that difficult to find and they will perform a wedding for gay couples. However the rest of the Christian community does not accept these Churches because it is against scripture.

I would like to co-exist without all this politically correct nonsense in the middle.
Debate Round No. 1
Gondun

Pro

It seems like we're on the same side here. I do enjoy discussion, but this is intended to be a debate. If you would like to debate, then as Con you would be supporting the idea that individuals/businesses should NOT be allowed to deny service to homosexual couples on the basis of religious beliefs when that service relates directly to their homosexual marriage. If you did not realize this when accepting the debate then we can drop it and call a tie.
steven8

Con

After debating with myself a lot, and talking to my Christian friends, I believe if you own a bakery then you should have to serve everyone (with a few exceptions of course) I think if you want to avoid being involved in a gay wedding services, you just need to bake the cake and put the frosting on etc. then the customer can put the gay theme on their own cake after all the baker's job is to bake the cake you don't have to put any themes on it, this way you're not forcing anyone to go against their conscience and no one is imposing their believes on anyone... just bake the cake and the customer can decorate it any way they want to put any message they want to or make it a gay or straight cake etc. I think that is a very reasonable and fair compromise. The baker gets to keep their business and the customer gets what they want.

We need to stop treating certain demographics more special than others. I think this is all political correctness and it's destructive for our communities. The baker should bake the cake and decorate it, but if you want special messages or two grooms or two brides or even a bride and groom then you should do it yourself. Personally I would not mind doing it myself but I know people would most likely disagree with me.
Debate Round No. 2
Gondun

Pro

Gondun forfeited this round.
steven8

Con

As for the pro-gay community and gay pride parades you should look up what actually goes on at these events, they commit unspeakable public sex acts and sometimes they even expose themselves while kids are present. In Brazil they had a young boy twerk for the perverts at the gay pride parade wearing nothing but jean shorts. If you don't believe be just look it up online, there are plenty of videos showing sex acts and nudity at gay pride parades. The stuff that goes on at these parades are criminal offenses. But if you want to defend the gay community than be my guest. you will only be leading this society to other perversions. Polygamy and Pederasty are next. It's already happening in other parts of the world, if you don't believe me that's your problem.
Debate Round No. 3
Gondun

Pro

Seeing as there was no actual debate here, lets just call it a draw.
steven8

Con

No, I refuse to call it a draw, you're saying there was no actual debate because you cannot shoot down anything I say about the gay community or gay marriage. This happens all the time. People can't win so they cop out and call it a draw or say you have not done anything.

Don't start what you can't finish. You know I'm right.
Debate Round No. 4
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by steven8 1 year ago
steven8
liberals complain about the way Christians treat gay people, no one criticizes the way the media treats all Christians. Calling us bigots and haters and evil people, when liberals support abortion and say having multiple sex partners is a good thing and it's normal to have two daddies, even though only 2% of Americans are actually gay.

Liberals are just as hypocritical, hateful and bigoted as Christians yet you're attacking the church and religious freedom. You do know that when you attack religious rights, you're also attacking your own right not to be religious and you talk about Christians being stupid. What if we get rid of religious rights, freedom of speech and thought and one day we have a Islamic president who hates gays and black people.

You morons attack Christians in America for being anti-gay and supporting traditional marriage, but you don't say anything about Islamic countries that murder and rape gay people. you're political correctness is destroying everything you know and love and you can't even see it because of your blind hatred towards the Religious community in America and your dog like loyalty to left-wing progressives running the government/media establishment.
Posted by Gondun 1 year ago
Gondun
I'm not saying that there was no debate because I didn't want to answer your points. I said it because we are on the same side of the debate and because most of what you said did not apply.
Posted by Gondun 1 year ago
Gondun
Also, can we keep it fairly short (2000-3000 characters)?
Posted by Gondun 1 year ago
Gondun
That sounds good. Could you start the debate and challenge me? I'm otherwise occupied for the rest of the night, but will be available to start debating tomorrow.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
Well there already is a law against discrimination, so I wouldn't be challenging the status quo and probably shouldn't be Pro.

How about you take Pro on this resolution:
Religious-Based Businesses Should Be Allowed To Deny Service To Gay Couples Attempting To Use The Service For Gay Marriage Endeavors.
Posted by Gondun 1 year ago
Gondun
Would "Businesses should be allowed to deny service to homosexual couples on the basis of religious beliefs, but only when that service relates directly to their homosexual marriage" be an acceptable resolution? Pro would be arguing that businesses should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation when that orientation has an impact on the service provided. Con would be arguing that all discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation should be illegal.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
I would, the problem for me is the resolution and how it's worded...I'm all for religious freedom being upheld alongside gay marriage, I just think the government has the right to violate a religion's first amendment right if a religion is violating a law.

So if you establish a different resolution about the government should/shouldn't be allowed to regulate religions, or you establish what exactly the burden of proof is for Pro and Con under this current resolution, I'll consider it.
Posted by Gondun 1 year ago
Gondun
@Huitt85
I'm saying that people should be allowed to chose not to support gay marriage by denying service in areas specifically related to it. Most stores have nothing to do with marriage or weddings and are not what I'm referring to here.

@MagicAintReal
If you want to debate this with me, by all means accept the debate.
Posted by MagicAintReal 1 year ago
MagicAintReal
@Gondun
Yes per the first amendment, the government cannot tell religions or religious business what to do...BUT...

let's imagine there were a religion with stealing as the ideal...I know, none of them are like that, but under the first amendment, if a religion were to be all about stealing from other people, the government could violate the religion's first amendment right and regulate them, because the activities under the religion are violating laws.

If there is a religion with discrimination as the ideal, then the government can regulate it, because, thanks to laws against unfair discrimination, religions cannot unfairly discriminate.

The government may not interfere in a religion unless that religion is violating laws.
Discrimination is a violation of the law, despite its extraction from the bible.
Posted by Huitt85 1 year ago
Huitt85
So what exactly are you saying? Are you saying that stores for example can choose who they serve based on there sexuality or on their religion?
No votes have been placed for this debate.