The Instigator
InnovativeEphemera
Pro (for)
Winning
24 Points
The Contender
TheMoralCompass2014
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

Resolved: Homosexuals should be permitted to marry

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 5 votes the winner is...
InnovativeEphemera
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/21/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,710 times Debate No: 59326
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (39)
Votes (5)

 

InnovativeEphemera

Pro

Here it is, the official rematch between TheMoralCompass2014 and myself on the topic of gay marriage. Here is the original debate, in which it was resolved that gay marriage ought to be permissible: [http://www.debate.org...]

My opponent feels a bit raw about it and has requested a rematch. I am more than willing to provide that service, so long as my opponent agrees to actually refute my arguments this time, as well as presenting substantive arguments of his own backed up by evidence, with no claims to 'common sense'.

Four rounds, 48 hours, 10k characters and 10 days of voting. In the interest of fairness, and because this is a rematch, not a fresh debate, my first round here will be ported from the previous debate with some modifications, because I feel cheated out of a lot of hard work that went into it. Some of the lines make reference to the first debate, but not all, and I anticipate most of it will come up again by my opponent anyway. Hopefully my opponent will rebut my arguments, and then illustrate some of his own.

Introduction round ported, as promised. Let's play!
_________________________________________________

The right to engage in a relationship with another person is fundamental to the human condition. Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." [http://www.un.org...]
Furthermore, Article 2 of the same declaration demands "[e]veryone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind..."

Some claim that the institution of marriage is antiquated and obsolete. While this may be true for some, we are not arguing the validity of marriage itself. We are arguing whether it is a right that should be afforded to all people, which I will contend it should. You have asked me to demonstrate that homosexuality is not a psycho-social disorder. I do not hold the burden of proof, you do, in order to support your claim that homosexuality is a psycho-social disorder. However, despite the reversal of this burden, I can demonstrate empirically that this is not the case, which I intend to do, supported by current research. In addition to this, I will make appeals to logic, reason and morality to demonstrate that not only is homosexuality a function of biology, but that even if it were a choice, society would not be justified in refusing rights to a group of people when they are afforded to another, with no substantive reason.

Psycho-social disorder: "mental illness caused or influenced by life experiences, as well as maladjusted cognitive and behavioral processes." [http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com......].

This is an inappropriate term to use for homosexuals, because it is not only degrading to them, but is also medically inaccurate and reduces the appreciation of these disorders in actual patients through misuse of the term.

Firstly, we have known for more than 20 years that there is an x-chromosome linkage which is associated with homosexuality [http://postcog.ucd.ie...]. Initially, this indicated that homosexuality is at least partially inherited from the mother's side. This is not so much a "gene for being homosexual", as a "gene for liking men", because females with this gene tend to create more progeny and start having children earlier. It also has a strong positive correlation in homosexuality. The region of the x-chromosome is Xq28, although it is not currently well understood where in the region or what the precise mechanism of action for this gene region is. The study was conducted in 1993, and since then, technological and scientific advancement have given rise to the ability to study the effects more carefully. A more recent study not only confirmed the old study's findings, but discovered an additional string on chromosome 8 which seems to have an effect on sexual orientation [http://www.iflscience.com...]. The markers used to identify those genes came from markers found in the Human Genome Project, contrary to your statement in the comments section. So, there is no single "gay gene". Instead, there are a variety of genetic influences, which when pared with other biological conditions (such as prenatal hormone exposure, etc) lead to the influence of a person's sexual orientation. Now, given that the preponderance of the scientific evidence is to suggest that homosexuality is a biological trait, much the same way as eye or hair colour is a trait of one's biology and a complex interaction of a variety of alleles and environmental influences, it is absolutely not demonstrable that homosexuality is a "psycho-social disorder".

The problem, then, is determining where in the evolutionary process these two currently identified genetic factors were favourable and led to selective advantage. Without desperately feeling the need to conform to overwhelming social pressure and pretending to be straight, homosexuals will typically not produce their own progeny (although this is now changing due to advances in medical technology, let's stick with the state of nature so we can discuss the evolutionary aspects).

In the state of nature, we can assume that homosexuals will not produce offspring. So why do the genes still exist? The answer is called "balanced polymorphism". This is when an allele is advantageous in some, but not all, circumstances. The oft-cited example (and the one used in the articles I quoted) is sickle-cell disease. Having the allele on both chromosomes is almost certainly fatal without modern medical intervention, but having the allele on only one chromosome leads to malaria immunity. This is why sickle-cell anaemia is highly prevalent in many malaria-zones, such as in some areas of Africa, as it leads to immunity against plasmodium falciparum.[http://www.pbs.org...]
It also helps explain why sickle-cell hasn't been eradicated from the gene-pool.

However, there is a distinction between sickle-cell disease, which can cause severe physiological damage to the patient and once contracted in the full form is in no way advantages, and homosexuality. I will take Wikipedia's definition: "A disease is a particular abnormal, pathological condition that affects part or all of an organism. It is often construed as a medical condition associated with specific symptoms and signs" [http://en.wikipedia.org...].
Instead, homosexuality is better thought of as a trait similar to hair colour, eye colour and height; a complex interaction of genes, hormones and environment which leads to the expression of a sexuality along a continuum. This is because the phenotype of being homosexual is not pathological, nor inherently destructive to the individual, and is therefore not a disease.

So now we know what balanced polymorphism is, how does that help us understand the continuation of homosexuality?
It goes back to the x-chromosome discussed earlier. Females who carry the gene are more likely to have children earlier and have more of them. This was demonstrated in the study to be of sufficient volume to counteract the effects of homosexuals not having children. Furthermore, it led to greater levels of instinctive nurturing, suggesting that homosexual males who helped rear familial children were actually giving those children survival advantages. And because those children came from the mother carrying the gene, approximately half of those children would still be carriers, and so on.

If we return to the definition, we can see that homosexuality does not fulfil the criteria for being listed as a psycho-social disorder, because it is not something you "catch" through life experience, and it is also not a "maladaptive" behaviour or cognitive process. It is a naturally-occurring behaviour set in a portion of the population of almost all animals, especially mammals. If your contention is that if the majority don't do it, then it's a disorder, then people who skydive and go to space must also have "psycho-social" or "behavioural" disorders. The key difference, though, is that skydivers and astronauts choose to do those things.

A note on the anus.
Sure, the anus isn't self-lubricating. It was also not evolved with the primary function of sexual activity. But nor was the mouth. Are you saying we should ban oral sex, too? What about manual and digital sex? Fingers and hands aren't (biologically speaking) sex organs, either. Further to that, not all homosexuals engage in anal sex, in the same way that not all heterosexual couples engage in vaginal sex. As a matter of fact, lots of heterosexuals engage in anal sex. Are you saying they shouldn't get married? This also has nothing to do with marriage. Should people who like to blindfold one another or use ice in the bedroom also be refused marriage rights?

I'd like to conclude in saying this. Homosexuality isn't a disorder. But if it was, having a disorder should not preclude anyone from getting married. Should people with multiple sclerosis not be allowed to get married?

Marriage equality should be extended to all persons, regardless of sexual orientation, race, religion, creed, culture, political affiliation or any other factor, as provided by the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.

What a person does in their bedroom only affects them and the person they're with. It doesn't affect anyone else. This is even more the case when it comes to homosexuals as they can't be held responsible for accidentally creating a child they have to look after, which is possible in heterosexual relationships.

It is not about "gay marriage" being right or wrong. It is about marriage being a right.
TheMoralCompass2014

Con

I can't believe how easy my opponent has made this for me, all that work and rhetoric about sickle cell for nought. For the record sickle cell has nothing to do with marriage nor does my opponents detailed analysis of chromosomal function. My opponents contention seems to be(once one swats away all the irrelevant factoids) that homosexuals should be treated in the same manner as everyone else and afforded all of the same rights as they are equally human. I agree. So then I suppose I just won this debate as homosexuals already have the right marry just like every other adult human in the U.S. My opponent will argue that they should be able to marry the person of their choice and again I agree. They can already marry the person of their choice. They simply have not been afforded the right to marry someone of the same sex as that does not constitute marriage and would be an additional right to the one they already have. It would be discriminatory to the rest of the population to allow homosexuals to call their relationship marriage. My opponent also contends that homosexuality is not a mental disorder or psycho-social in nature. Lets examine how homosexuality was erroneously removed from the list of mental illnesses. In 1973 after threats, intimidation, and disturbances of the APA proceedings, the APA eventually left the diagnosis in the hands of popular vote by the membership. All of the research up to this point confirmed that homosexuals were indeed psycho-socially abnormal in addition to being at higher risk for alcoholism and other mental disorders. There has never before or since been a medical diagnosis which was rejected by simply a raise of hands. If the diagnosis was removed in error as I have shown unequivocally, then we must assume that homosexuality is in FACT a mental disorder. There are also a large number of ex gays which proves it is a treatable mental illness. Dr. Ronald Bayer, author of the book, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry writes:

The entire process, from the first confrontation organized by gay demonstrators to the referendum demanded by orthodox psychiatrists, seemed to violate the most basic expectations about how questions of science should be resolved. Instead of being engaged in sober discussion of data, psychiatrists were swept up in a political controversy. The result was not a conclusion based on an approximation of the scientific truth as dictated by reason, but was instead an action demanded by the ideological temper of the times.

Along these same lines, a recent radio documentary on the subject of homosexuality revealed that the President-elect of the APA in 1973, Dr. John P. Speigel, was a "closeted homosexual with a very particular agenda."

Some have exaggerated or misrepresented these studies in an attempt to prove that homosexuality is genetic. Others insist that homosexuality is developed after birth as a response to one"s environment. The truth is that we have no conclusive replicable research to prove either conclusion. However, most researchers have come to the conclusion that sexual orientation is likely determined by a complex interaction between a person"s genetic make-up and their environment.

Even the American Psychological Association asserts that:

There are numerous theories about the origins of a person's sexual orientation; most scientists today agree that sexual orientation is most likely the result of a complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors. In most people, sexual orientation is shaped at an early age.17..

And the American Psychiatric Association wrote:

Currently there is a renewed interest in searching for biological etiologies for homosexuality. However, to date there are no replicated scientific studies supporting any specific biological etiology for homosexuality.
So all that crap research you posted regarding the non-existent biological link,debunked. Just give up while you still have no credibility. Enjoy!!

http://homosexualityandscience.wordpress.com...

http://www.dailykos.com...#
Debate Round No. 1
InnovativeEphemera

Pro

My opponent has conceded the debate. "My opponent will argue that they should be able to marry the person of their choice and again I agree." Wonderful, so what are we doing here?

On to rebuttals.
Firstly, my illustration about sickle cell disease was a contextual summation of the evidence for homosexuality being natural. So it was not "for nought" [sic].

"So then I suppose I just won this debate as homosexuals already have the right marry just like every other adult human in the U.S." That's great, but sorry what does the US have to do with anything? I don't live in the US.

"They simply have not been afforded the right to marry someone of the same sex". So you agree it's a right which they aren't being afforded?

"It would be discriminatory to the rest of the population to allow homosexuals to call their relationship marriage." No it wouldn't. You can still marry a woman, if that's what you want, which I'm curious about but that's another topic. All it requires is a change in definition, which Oxford is already doing: [http://www.christianpost.com...]


You then go on this absolutely nonsense treatise about the APA and the DSM. I'm a psychology major so let me educate you.

You said homosexuality was likely a result of a "...complex interaction of environmental, cognitive and biological factors". Correct. That's exactly what I said. I'm glad we agree.


You then demonstrated your illiteracy and inability to do the following maths sum: 2014 - 2011 = 3 years apart. Your blog posts [read: not peer-reviewed papers, but the opinions of two Christians] are outdated. The new science is in and you have absolutely no peer-reviewed evidence against this. Would you kindly find some evidence and not anecdotal opinion supporting your claim?

All of your brimstone propaganda for naught!

My "crap research" which I'm presuming you didn't (or couldn't) read was more recent than your blog's opinion, and was conducted by people who know what they're talking about.

You went to the old DSMs. I know you know why that's absolutely ridiculous and you're just trying to snooker myself and the audience. Again, don't try to cheat a psych major on the history of the DSM.

The homosexuality component of the DSM was justified by a study with massive cultural bias and methodological problems. This was the study used to justify inclusion: [http://en.wikipedia.org...]

However, that justification was retracted when a far better controlled and more stringently blinded study was conducted by Evelyn Hooker: [http://www.apa.org...]. Homosexuality was falsely included, and not erroneously omitted. This is because adjusted homosexuals not only display absolutely none of the criteria for a psycho-social disorder (I suspect you don't even know what that means) but they display absolutely no pathological symptoms. The key difference is sex partner preference. Unless you're planning on sleeping with a person, that's totally irrelevant to their character and whether or not they are able to marry.

Homosexuality is not only natural, but if it weren't, that would not preclude a person from becoming married.

On to further arguments!

______________________________________________

My opponent has given no reason that two people who are homosexual ought not get married. I have demonstrated that homosexuality is natural, through rigorously peer-reviewed evidence. Of course, my opponent will never accept evidence of any sort, because evidence denies faith. So why don't we take yet another angle!

Let's say, hypothetically, that homosexuality is a disorder (although first I'd like my opponent to produce his credentials for being able to diagnose a person with a disorder), just like my opponent will claim anyone with a fetish, or who likes to have sex in any way other than missionary, or who has ever masturbated or given or received oral sex, male or female, is disordered. So pretty much everybody. Let's just say that this is the case. Does this mean that homosexuals shouldn't get married? Of course it doesn't. Let's find out why.

Firstly, the legal union between two people in marriage affects those two people, their families and to a certain extent the tax office, etc. It does not affect the ability of two heterosexuals to get married. This is an absolutely flawed line of thinking. Do not be so arrogant as to assume that people will be sucked in by you claiming that it is you who is being discriminated against by gay people.

Secondly, perhaps you think it's a sin and they're going to be punished for what they're doing. Isn't that up to them, not you?
I refer you to Matthew 7:1-3: "Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?"


By the way, no matter how many times you jam your fingers in your ears yelling "la la la la" you can't pray the gay away, nor the evidence. Just because you refuse to even look at the evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Just because a relgious "authorityreligioustold you that there is no evidence doesn't make that true, either. The evidence is available for you to look at, but I suspect you're too frightened to, out of fear that your world view might be mistaken in this area. If you were really so confident and had no insecurity and were really adamant in your faith, then you wouldn't be so afraid to look at the evidence.

Open your mind, my friend. Question everything, think critically. You don't have to be a slave to the hate machine. Unshackle yourself of your credulity. Instead of sitting blindly and deafly, regurgitating verbatim everything someone else instructs of you without hesitation, take pause to consider whether what they and you are saying is making sense. Ask what a person's motivation might be to convince you of this. You are considering only a single side of the cube, but the cube has many layers and sides and you have to examine all of them to approach truth. Stop sitting in the shade and come join us in the light of humanity.

John 8:32: "And you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free".

In good health, brother.
TheMoralCompass2014

Con

You are seriously gonna drag Evelyn Hooker into this? Ok well I would imagine anyone with a brain will see through that crap research too. By the way if you are a psych-major I'm Sigmund Freud. Oh yes and my credentials, for what they are worth, MBA in psychological science Purdue University. But whats that matter anyway as since you have shown people lie on the internet all the time. My opponent contends that because he/she/it is a psych major(highly doubtful) that some how makes their ability to do research better than the average Joe. A brief history on Ms. hooker should suffice to show you are no psych major and if you are, not a very good one as you are using the most biased material available to "prove" your case, you have in effect proven mine for me.

Hooker, a professor at the University of California at LA is credited in the medical and psychological community, and most especially amongst Gay activists, with establishing that there is no measurable psychological difference between heterosexual and homosexual men. Her work proposed that homosexuality is merely a normal minority variation of human sexuality. It was first published in the Journal of Projective Techniques in 1957, and is flaunted as proof that homosexual activity is a normal and valid lifestyle. Her 1957 study served as a basis for most of the later hyperbole of the Gay movements ideology, including the notion that any objection to the Gay agenda is born from an irrational fear, that they have since labeled "homophobia."
The American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973 only after years of political pressure from gay activists. The American Psychiatrics association board of trustees passed this decision followed by a statement which listed among the reasons for their decision as changing social norms and growing gay rights activism . Hookers Studies, although lacking credibility of nonpartisan peer review was cited by advocates as another reason for their decision to remove homosexuality from the DSM in 1973.

Jeffrey Satinover wrote that Hookers work has helped the homosexual movement in keeping with the Marxist theories from which it came - to convince judicial and legislative bodies such as the US Supreme Court that homosexuality comprises an oppressed "class" whose rights have been trampled by irrational prejudice. Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth

Hookers Studies however were the product of a deliberate campaign by Gay activists to bring forward particular, pre-arranged outcomes, an approach that ignores scientific objectivity. Objectivity is a basic philosophical concept, related to reality and truth. Objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of a subject's individual biases, interpretations, feelings, and imaginings. Scientific Objectivity is a value that informs how scientific studies are conducted and how scientific truths are arrived at. It is the idea that scientists, in attempting to uncover truths about the natural world, must aspire to eliminate personal biases, emotional involvement, etc ... Hookers Studies failed the most basic of Litmus tests regarding Objectivity. Hooker was an associate of the Mattachine Society and was lobbied and eventually convinced to conduct a research study of homosexuality for the sole purpose of advancing their Agenda.

Again all of this irrelevant as homosexuals have the same right to marry as anyone else.
Debate Round No. 2
InnovativeEphemera

Pro

I thoroughly apologise to the audience who I anticipate were expecting to see measured and logical responses from my opponent. Unfortunately, he has failed to provide any substantive evidence against homosexuals being able to marry one another. Further, he has slipped into baseless conjecture. If you're Freud, that explains why you understand psychology so poorly. Get off the cocaine and start doing some research, mate. My profile clearly states that I am studying at Sydney University and Psychology is one of the most common classes taken by undergraduate students in the west. I don't see what my opponent is getting so upset about. Further, he then claims to have an "MBA in psychological science". I wonder if my opponent knows that an MBA is a business degree. Does that mean you know how to administrate a psych department but have no actual training in psychology? Did you even graduate high school? I would expect a thirty-four year-old postgraduate alumnus of Purdue to write with clearer grammar and spelling, and perhaps employ more sophisticated prose. I would ask you to ameliorate your emotional haymakers and compose your temper, sir. Don't make me be the grown-up here.

Regardless, your diatribe on Evelyn Hooker is quite extensive and I'm glad you feel so comfortable attacking that aspect of my argument, regardless of your lack of citations. It must be comforting knowing there's something you think you can argue against (if poorly). Hopefully that boosted your self-esteem. I hope I don't hurt your rebound.

You spurt out all this stuff about "bias" and so on. I haven't yet seen any evidence from you on this. Also the whole standover tactic thing, could you please provide reference to this? I'll even be generous and permit you to post it in the comments section so you don't waste a round. If you genuinely have evidence that conflicts with the scientific consensus on homosexuality, feel free to write it down, have it peer-reviewed, and collect your Nobel Prize.

All I have from you is your opinion that her work is biased. Is this conspiracy of the gays, or conspiracy of the clergy? Given the church's track record with sexual misconduct I think I'm going to listen to the scientists, thanks.

And after all of this, you still haven't addressed why having a psycho-social disorder should preclude people from marrying whomever they wish. Anxiety is a psycho-social disorder. As is anorexia [http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...]. Should people with anxiety or anorexia not be allowed to marry one another because they have a psycho-social disorder? Your progression of thought breaches the realm of absurdity.

___________________________________

A further exercise to pander to your nonsense. Let's say that I agree with your pathologically conspiratorial thinking and concede that the studies were biased and the gay agenda faked the moon landing by filling vaccines with demons or whatever. Am I to say, "You have a disease. Therefore, you are not permitted to get married. Everything else is you want to do is fine, though." I mean, what palaver is this?

Marriage, as I have illustrated, is a fundamental right of affirmation of a relationship under the law, conveying not only social significance but certain legal protections to assets, property, wealth, and the wishes of the terminally ill. Many homosexuals do not wish to get married. This is hardly the point. The point is that if they want to, they should have the option.


Homosexuals should have the right to marry one another, and I eagerly await your first argument against this notion.
TheMoralCompass2014

Con

Your arrogance amuses me. What evidence have you offered to support your claim other than a long determined work of fiction by your hero Ms. Hooker ( a quite fitting name for her I might add)? I have repeatedly said homosexuals should have the same rights as everyone else, they simply don't deserve special rights because they happen to like the same sex. Your debate is aptly named Homosexuals Should Be Permitted To Marry, what part of they are do you not understand? They do not however own the definition of marriage and they should not be permitted to change that definition because they chose an alternative lifestyle.
By allowing homosexuals to marry each other we perpetuate the Gay agenda which is acceptance of their sexual deviance. After legalizing gay marriage in MA less than 5% of homosexuals married after ten years.(us census bureau 2012) The debate is not whether or not they should be able to marry each other because that is clearly not what they want, they seek acceptance to further their agenda of normalizing homosexuality.
paraphilia
[perR42;əfilR42;yə]
Etymology: Gk, para + philein, to love
sexual perversion or deviation. A condition in which the sexual instinct is expressed in ways that are socially prohibited or unacceptable or are biologically undesirable, such as the use of a nonhuman object for sexual arousal, sexual activity with another person that involves real or simulated suffering or humiliation, or sexual relations with a nonconsenting partner.

This term is consistent with homosexual behavior which is biologically undesirable as it does not produce offspring. It is also socially unacceptable to many people.
Regardless of their motivation homosexuals have the right to marry so any point beyond that is irrelevant and unfortunately for you only shows that I have won this debate hands down. It is yet to be seen whether people will vote with integrity or if they will vote simply in favor of the gay agenda, judging by what I have seen it will be the latter and thats ok my goal is not to win but to educate people on how homosexuals have truly advanced their disgusting lifestyle to that of a social norm.
Debate Round No. 3
InnovativeEphemera

Pro

Once again, we are disappointed with the inconsistency and fallibility of my opponent's arguments. I hope that one day someone from the anti-happiness brigade can provide some more intellectually stimulating discussion. However, out of generosity, I will apply Hanlon's razor to you.

In light of the thematic mosaic of this debate, my method of summary execution will, of course, be lapidation.

Rebuttals

My opponent asks what evidence I have provided, other than Evelyn Hooker. While my opponent clearly has sufficient digits to type, he seems unable to scroll in the upward direction.

Here is a cursory summation of some of the non-Hooker sources I have already used:

- [http://postcog.ucd.ie...]
- [http://www.iflscience.com...]
- [http://www.pbs.org...]

Here are a couple of additional references for your ease of checking the science: (not that I think you'll actually bother checking any of them. Peer review is controlled by the Illuminati, right?)

- [http://www.sciencedirect.com...]
- [http://www.cambridge.org...]
- [http://www.biomedcentral.com...]
- [https://www.youtube.com...]
- [http://www.theguardian.com...]


My opponent then attempted to swindle semantic points because he can't win the debate on argumentation. Nevertheless, he still failed.

1. In my country, homosexuals cannot get married.
2. Even in places, like the US, where they can, the topic of whether or not they should be able to is not a question of whether they can at the present. Case in point, do you think women should be allowed to drive? They are currently allowed to, but that wasn't the question.

My opponent then claims with no evidence once again that homosexuality is a choice, despite my insurmountable evidence to the contrary. I further assert that if it were a choice, this should still have no impact on marriage law.

My opponent then ignores my numerous explanations that the number of homosexuals getting married is completely irrelevant to the rights they ought to be granted. In the same way that you have a right to travel interstate or overseas, not everyone chooses to do it, but for those that want to, they should have the option.

You then bastardise the definition of paraphilia. Firstly, the removal of the social stigma of homosexuality is making it more socially acceptable and less prohibited, negating the first half of your definition. Secondly, homosexuality is not inherently biologically undesirable. Females using vibrators is an example of a non-human object used for sexual arousal and is perfectly safe under normal conditions. Anal sex, which is engaged in by heterosexuals and gay men alike (although I'm not sure if this the main choice of pleasure for homosexual females...are they allowed to get married now?), is also safe provided sufficient lubrication is employed.

It is not consistent with homosexual behaviour, just like it's not consistent with oral sex between a man and a woman, or anal sex between a man and a woman, or masturbation or t*t-fu**ing or 69 or anything else that doesn't cause severe physical detriment to one or both partners. You're correct that homosexuals cannot produce offspring naturally, but neither can infertile heterosexuals. Should they be banned from marriage? What about people who masturbate? No offspring there.

You've brought up your semantics again, boring. Once again, they don't have the right to marry where I live and they don't in many other countries, either. Further to that, whether or not they are currently able to is irrelevant to whether or not they should be permitted to. Do you understand the distinction? Currently, in some states of the US, it is permissible to purchase marijuana for medical purposes. That is, they currently can do that. What I'm asking is whether or not you think they should be able to do that, or if you think it should be repealed. It's really not that difficult, I thought you had a masters in business administration?

You then claim an auto victory despite having put absolutely no effort into your debate and touting vile and grotesque perversions of your strange anal fixation, presumably to appease your conscience as you battle with the internal conflict of having been born a homosexual Christian. Just so you know, there is absolutely nothing wrong with who you are and how you were born, it's perfectly natural and you haven't done anything wrong.

You then go on a tirade about disgusting lifestyle habits which frankly just lost you the debate, I didn't even need to do anything. You want to educate people and yet you give no arguments and no evidence. You have been brainwashed by the clergy and I fear that you are far too old for salvation now, your mind will forever refuse to loosen the shackles of servitude. You still believe your god will save you...from what he's going to do to you if you don't worship him. And in the meantime you poison the earth with bigoted hate speech and contribute to the problem instead of helping with the solution.

I once again extend an invitation to leave the land of the shadows, of lies and malignant maleficence, and join us in reality. The world is far more beautiful when you are mortal. The gods envy us.

_________________________________


As stipulated in my introduction, all I am asking for is the extension of human rights to those who are not currently receiving them, or in your case, the continuation of the rights of homosexuals to get married and be afforded the social protection that everyone else is. You claim that you want homosexuals to have equal rights but not additional rights. This is exactly what I want, too.

It's time to wake up, and realise that once again you are standing on the wrong side of history. Regardless of the orifice into which you insert or receive genitalia, you have a right to marry the person you love. You have hijacked this topic and made it all about anal sex which is such a tiny and insignificant area in this issue. The key issue is whether or not two people who love one another and want to spend their lives making each other happy and bettering one another as people should be allowed to live in a home together and make travel plans and have arguments and fight about who left the fridge door open and why you didn't fill up the car.

If the only reason that you engage in relationships is to have sex (probably anal), sir, then I'm afraid it is you who has the sexual perversion and paraphilia. Two people ought to be in a relationship and get married out of love, mutual respect and companionship.

Open your mind and open your heart, refuse to let the darkness and hatred consume you. Other people's happiness is not to your detriment.

Lighting another candle does not make yours any dimmer. And blowing out another's candle does not make yours any brighter.

See clearly, brother. We are all family in this place.
TheMoralCompass2014

Con

My opponent has conceded. The name of this debate is: Homosexuals should be permitted to marry. They are. I have demonstrated that my opponent is attempting to baffle with bs for lack of a better term, and is not interested in exposing truth but in upholding the gay agenda. He contradicts himself on every turn as he screams that my brimstone talk is nonsense on one hand and cites christian websites as sources on the other(I have not once brought faith or religion into this debate yet my opponent insists I am some fundamentalist when in actuality I am an atheist.)
He has used lots of big words in an attempt to afford himself credibility which is clearly unfounded.
My opponent also asserts that because I find anal sex to be unnatural and disgusting no matter if heterosexual or homosexual in nature, I am gay, a ridiculous and juvenile conclusion much like the rest of his argument.

" From the 1991 Hypothalamus (Brain) Study, Simon LeVay, who self-identifies as gay, said: "It"s important to stress what I didn"t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn"t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain." (2)

" And from the 1991 Twins Study, Richard Pillard " also a gay man " admits: "Although male and female homosexuality appear to be at least somewhat heritable, environment must also be of considerable importance in their origins." (3)

" And from the 1993 X Chromosome Study, Dean Hamer " also a gay man " said: ""environmental factors play a role. There is not a single master gene that makes people gay"I don"t think we will ever be able to predict who will be gay." (4)

" And from the 2005 Fruit Fly Study, Barry Dickson, the lead researcher, admitted that the understanding of how innate behaviors are genetically determined is "rudimentary at best." He also admitted that the male-male courtship behaviors they observed probably involved "environmental and social stimuli" and that the female-female courtship behavior was abnormal " missing some key steps. (5)

" And what about the 2005 male and 2006 female pheromone studies from Sweden that gay activists claimed were more evidence of a biological basis to homosexuality? (Pheromones are chemicals that can be smelled and are known to influence animal behavior. However, their role in humans is unknown.) Here, it is significant that Ivanka Savic, the lead researcher, said that the 2005 study had nothing to do with proving homosexuality to be biological. And regarding the 2006 study, she said "it is very important to make clear that the study has no implications for possible dynamics in sexual orientation." (6)

" More recently, Dr. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, summed up the research on homosexuality saying that "sexual orientation is genetically influenced but not hardwired by DNA, and that whatever genes are involved represent predispositions, not predeterminations" (italics added). (7) As a comparison, Collins indicates that the potential genetic component for homosexuality is much less than the genetic contribution that has been found for common personality traits such as general cognitive ability, extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, openness, aggression and traditionalism. (8)

Clearly, the case for a "gay gene" has not been made.
http://www.citizenlink.com...
http://www.americanthinker.com...
http://www.cwfa.org...
Debate Round No. 4
39 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheMoralCompass2014 3 years ago
TheMoralCompass2014
I guess voting with integrity was too much to ask.
Posted by Samreay 3 years ago
Samreay
Commenting to unsubscribe from the torrent of emails.
Posted by TheMoralCompass2014 3 years ago
TheMoralCompass2014
Grow up child.
Posted by InnovativeEphemera 3 years ago
InnovativeEphemera
Used as an example? You wouldn't stop talking about it! And you offered to wipe my bum, if I recall correctly. Kinda shady, bro. Makes me fear for my safety a little. And by the way, gay is not an insult.

What adult? I hope you're not referring to yourself.

As it happens I've now beaten you twice, handily. Maybe you're not ready to debate children yet?
Posted by TheMoralCompass2014 3 years ago
TheMoralCompass2014
Again he is asserting that because I used anal sex as an example of homosexual behavior, I must be gay or I have an anal fixation. I think it is clear this boy is not ready to debate with adults.
Posted by InnovativeEphemera 3 years ago
InnovativeEphemera
Oh no! I hope I didn't make you cry.
Posted by TheMoralCompass2014 3 years ago
TheMoralCompass2014
The comments you posted while trolling another debate I was participating in; on homosexuality.
Posted by InnovativeEphemera 3 years ago
InnovativeEphemera
And I only suggested you might have been a closet homosexual because of your unrelenting fixation on anal sex, which is hardly a far stretch.
Posted by InnovativeEphemera 3 years ago
InnovativeEphemera
Sorry, which comments on what debates were removed? You wouldn't have gone around to my other debates and started reporting random posts, would you?
Posted by TheMoralCompass2014 3 years ago
TheMoralCompass2014
Again this point is illustrated below as Innovative continues to try to insult me. His child like behavior although initially amusing is growing more pathetic with each comment. He claims I started the childishness, I am certain it will be clear to anyone who reads the comments/debate in their entirety that this too is just another infamous lie. This began by Innovative asserting that I was a closet homosexual because we had differing views. Two of his comments were removed from another debate as someone apparently reported them. This does not excuse my engagement in similar rhetoric but I want it to be clear that the attacks were initiated by innovative as anyone who reads even the first comment will see.
5 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Vote Placed by MrJosh 3 years ago
MrJosh
InnovativeEphemeraTheMoralCompass2014Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to PRO because of CON's demeanor and unnecessarily rude comments; Sources because PRO used credible sources to back up his points; Arguments because CON conceded that marriage is a right that homosexuals are currently not enjoying while also claiming that they should be treated equally.
Vote Placed by Daltonian 3 years ago
Daltonian
InnovativeEphemeraTheMoralCompass2014Tied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Bleh, nevermind. Just noticed there is more than one votebomb type vote, so I'll leave it to reporting. Apparently, con has been harassing Ephemera and it shines through in his attitude in the debate, so conduct to Pro. Pro won because con, as he has a history of doing, started arguing for totally separate points like the issue of a "gay gene" - a red herring. Pro used more reliable and 3x as many sources. Con spent a lot of time discussing irrelevant topics, laughing at his opponent, and making statements without backing them up.
Vote Placed by Cooldudebro 3 years ago
Cooldudebro
InnovativeEphemeraTheMoralCompass2014Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct goes to pro because of intellectual dishonesty. Pro used scientific sources. S/G tied. I feel like pro over came the odds and won. Cudos to pro!
Vote Placed by telisw37 3 years ago
telisw37
InnovativeEphemeraTheMoralCompass2014Tied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Con clearly made a better case, he had the better attitude and conduct. The sources con used were creditable. Pro gave personal opinion and no proof. And con used much better grammar and writing style. Easy win for con.
Vote Placed by Samreay 3 years ago
Samreay
InnovativeEphemeraTheMoralCompass2014Tied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro because of Cons intellectually dishonest attempt to win the debate via semantic trickery by claiming homosexuals can marry - ignoring the obvious and central-to-debate point that it is the marriage of two people of the same gender being discussed. Also bad conduct to essentially copy your entire last argument from one of yours sources Con, even if you do cite it. Sources clearly, clearly, in Pro's favour, who actually presented credible scientific sources against Con's horrific selection of sources (seriously Con, in your last three sources, one of them is just a self published editorial, how on Earth do you think voters will find that a credible source?). Arguments also to Pro, who gave strong reasons in favour of gay marriage (could have been a lot stronger though). Con - absolutely horrific arguments (pushing the gay agenda and sexual deviance as an example) and you didn't really directly address any of Pros arguments directly.