The Instigator
Amedexyius
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
minddrag
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

Russia is Justified for Not Allowing Gay Marriage and Gay Propaganda

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Amedexyius
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/7/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 4 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 388 times Debate No: 93463
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (4)

 

Amedexyius

Pro

Recommended Guide, Not Mandatory

Round 1: Opening Arguments
Round 2: Rebuttals
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Finishing Statements


Justified

1.) having, done for, or marked by a good or legitimate reason.

Let it be known to Con that it is illegal to marry, it is not illegal to be homosexual or engage in homosexuality (such as a man and man kissing on the street or private matters in residencies) [1].

Much of the Western World had criticized Russia for their laws which bar homosexual couples from being able to marry. The federal government of Russia has dictated that the law came by the reasoning to protect minors and due to the overwhelming majority of the people to ban the marriage [2]. Homosexuality is not officially considered a mental illness in Russia, although it is considered unnatural and a biological controversy. Under the principles of democracy and the controversy concerning discrimination and prejudice, Russia does not condone employment discrimination in many private and federal branches of the nation. The Russian military has a Don't Ask, Don't Tell [1, again] policy in order to prevent discrimination.

As I said before, gay prejudice in Russia is prevalent, yet still illegal. Russia has taken measures in order to maintain peace during attacks on gay communities. There is no international law dictating whether homosexual marriage bans are an affront to human rights, and independent organizations have no basis to claim the Russian federal government is homophobic, they are abiding to democratic values. I will save more of my argument for my opponent, whom I wish good luck.

I should also say that I am not homophobic or against gay marriage, I have no opinion on the topic if a person decides to label me as prejudiced.

Sources
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org......
[2] http://www.themoscowtimes.com......
minddrag

Con

To begin I would like to thank my opponent for proposing this debate, as it is not a topic I have debated before, and the climate of Russia, in contrast to the Western countries is a different twist on the original pro/con gay marriage debate. I will not be rebutting my opponents points this round as he does not have a chance to reply to my points in his beginning speech, instead I will just outline my argument and briefly delve into my points.

My first point is that even though it is not illigal in russia to be a homosexual, there is no laws protecting homosexual people. This is the case in two different breaches of employment law against openly homosexual people in Russia.

Anton Krasovsky, a television news anchor at government-run KontrTV, was immediately fired[34] from his job in January 2013 when he announced during a live broadcast that he is gay and disgusted by the national anti-gay "propaganda" legislation that had been proposed although had not yet passed.

In September 2013, a Khabarovsk teacher and gay rights activist, Alexandr Yermoshkin, was fired from his two jobs as school teacher and university researcher. A week earlier, he had been attacked by members of a local neo-nazi group "Shtolz Khabarovsk". A homophobic activist group called "Movement against the propaganda of sexual perversions" had campaigned for his dismissal.

Using these examples it is easy to see that there are no employment laws protecting the Homosexual community in Russia, which creates an unwelcome and hostile environment for the homosexuals in Russia.

Unlike in many modern nations,homosexuals in Russia are not protected from violent crimes under Russian Law. Violent criminal acts carried out against homosexuals are prosecuted as criminal offenses under Russian law, but the sexual orientation or gender identity of the victim is not considered an aggravating factor which could turn the crime into a hate crime with a much higher sentence, is not considered. This shows that the Government of Russia is clearly although not openly, endorsing the attack and discrimination of Homosexuals.

Marriage in Russia, along with most of the world brings large economical benefits, it terms of leave and tax breaks. To deprive homosexual couples of these rights and the right to a legitimate marriage is discriminating against them.

The Russian government claims that the laws against homosexual marriage and the blatant blindness of the Russian Government to the attacks on homosexuals are for the good of the children and not exposing them to homosexuality, yet homosexual actions are not prohibited in Russia. One must ask the question when encountering this double standard whether Russia just does not want to spend its tax money on homosexuals, and the "for the children" is just a cover up.

I look forward to my opponents speech and hope this to be a good and enthralling debate.
Debate Round No. 1
Amedexyius

Pro

Thank you, Con, for providing your organized and well-phrased argument. I will start with rebuttals and continuous points in my argument.

Rebuttals and Other Arguments

Con makes a statement that there are no "...laws protecting homosexuality in Russia". This statement is fairly vague. Russia does not have the federal laws of Hate Crimes that the United States has imposed in their own societies. Homosexuals in Russia, are by definition, equal under the eyes of the Russian Justice System whereas if a homosexual is attacked by a homophobe on the streets of Moscow, the aggressor will be charged under the same criminal charge of Battery and Assault [1]. The attacker will not receive an extended sentence for hate upon a different sexuality.

Your statement of Anton Kravosky conveniently ignored the point that he was fired for acting out in the middle of a live broadcast. It doesn't matter what he said, it is what he did, the time he did it, and where he did it which led to him being fired for inappropriate behaviour, not homosexuality [2].

Your argument for Alexandr Yermoshkin also conveniently skipped over the fact that he was fired for organizing Homosexual protesting flash mobs which broke the local law and federal law of Anti-Gay propaganda in Public and for Disturbing the Peace by an impromptu protest [3]. (Source 3 is biased against a lot of Russian legislation, I used it to quote them for admitting Yermoshkin broke the law) The neo-Nazi group is not condoned by Russian officials or law-enforcement and they are persecuted for assault and other crimes.

My opponent argues that due to the lack of Hate Crime Laws in the Russian federal legislation, they are indirectly endorsing, or ignoring, the rights of the sexually oriented individuals currently persecuted by intolerant radicals. Hate Crimes are a controversial issue within themselves, with notorious double standards, [4], and not a lot of 'modern' nations have Hate Crimes labelled in their own legislative systems. Some 'modern' nations don't even recognize civil unions [5].



(Above) Focus on Europe, Light Blue means recognizes Civil Union, Grey means no laws regarding homosexuality whether it protection or discrimination, Pale means laws restricting homosexual propaganda. You will see that Berlin -South, only civil unions are recognized, and Warsaw -East there is no protection or endorsement. Lithuania also holds anti-propaganda laws.

Con states that marriage brings economic benefits, which I am doubtful of considering he has not founded his claims with sources, and provides the examples of "leave and tax breaks" which actually harms the income of a nation. He continues his argument stating that homosexual couples have the right to a legitimate marriage which is unfounded. There are no international articles which deem homosexual marriage as a human right. In reality, cultural and socio-political perspective of a nation is the true decider of whether gay couples actually have the right to marry. I made a strong point in the socio-political perspective of homosexuality in different nations and it was not refuted by my opponent.

There is then the question of the concept of human rights. What binds a nation to recognizing the unfounded and psychological concept that people are entitled, by birth, the right under a society to complete what actions they wish? The foundation of human rights always changes and the philosophical argument it harbors will always become a matter of perspective, and depending on the argument, never factual [6].

Pro makes the next statement that the Russian government is blind to the attacks on homosexuals which I have made with solid evidence, to be an unfounded statement. He also refuses to acknowledge my previous argument concerning the exposing of homosexual propaganda to the manipulative minds of minors. Children can be psychologically manipulated with ease, meaning that from a young start, any ideas and philosophical beliefs will be heavily solidified into their minds at childhood, turning into strong forms of indoctrination. The concept of homosexuality is biologically [7] *unnatural meaning that while it not inherently morally incorrect which is just from perspective, making morality subjective), it is factually by the principles of nature, 'incorrect'.

Sources
[1] http://www.consultant.ru...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://pulitzercenter.org...
[4] http://www.theatlantic.com...
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] http://www.lesley.edu...
[7] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[8 ]http://www.merriam-webster.com...

*Unnatural: different from how things usually are in the physical world or in nature [8].

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding Round 1, Debate.org seems to have had some problems with the hyperlink of my sources. In order to not be penalized, I'll re-instate them here.

Round 1 Sources

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.themoscowtimes.com...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I enjoyed the arguments made by my opponent and the process of my rebuttals to my opponent. I hope he will also have a good time with his side of the debate.









minddrag

Con

I would first like to thank my opponent for his wonderful speech and it is looking to be a challenging and interesting debate. Without further ado, I would like to begin my rebuttals and speech.

Homosexuals are targeted by hate crimes in russia quite frequently. [1] In looking at hate crimes we also may miss the hate crimes that are done by Homosexuals towards Heterosexuals or any other combination therein. Hate crime legislation in Russia would protect all sexual orientations from attack, including but not limited to heterosexuals, bisexuals, homosexuals, asexuals and other orientations. Civil rights legislation in the United States had a widespread effect in greatly reducing homophobia when it was enacted in 1964. [2] The long range effects of including sexual orientation in hate crimes legislation will probably significantly reduce homophobia within Russia.

In your speech you mentioned “Hate Crimes are a controversial issue within themselves, with notorious double standards, and not a lot of 'modern' nations have Hate Crimes labelled in their own legislative systems.”[3] Even though it is not on the topic of the debate I would like to briefly outline why Hate Crime legislation is needed. Hate crime legislation protects a group of people, which makes the public aware of the plight that group is in. Hate crime legislation will make the public aware that the group is vulnerable, has been extensively victimized in the
past, and is in need of protection. [3]

In your speech you briefly mentioned “Alexandr Yermoshkin was fired for organizing Homosexual protesting flash mobs which broke the local law and federal law of Anti-Gay propaganda in Public and for Disturbing the Peace by an impromptu protest“[3]

I would first like to dispute that point by stating that “Citizens of the Russian Federation shall have the right to gather peacefully, without weapons, and to hold meetings, rallies, demonstrations, marches and pickets.” From Chapter 2, Article 31 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. [5][6] Observing this law in Russia, the russian government wrongfully arrested Alexandr Yermoshkin as he was protected under the Russian Constitution.

In your speech you stated “Children can be psychologically manipulated with ease, meaning that from a young start, any ideas and philosophical beliefs will be heavily solidified into their minds at childhood, turning into strong forms of indoctrination.”[3] I completely agree with the fact that you have stated, but I do not agree with the conclusion you brought from it. If children are taught from a young age that Homosexuals are wrong and to be looked down upon, then they will demonstrate this trait later in life. This can very well lead to an increase in hate crimes targeting homosexual people in Russia, which would be another reason to enact hate crime legislation to protect them and dissuade would be attackers. The only reason to hide homosexual propaganda would be to dissuade children from becoming gay, as many people believe that being homosexual is a choice and can be unlearned. This is not the case because two genetic regions – Xq28 an 8q12 – which seemed to be correlated to homosexuality in men.[7] This means that you are born gay, although you can choose to be straight, choice is not the only factor, and most children will not be turned homosexual by the propaganda, only taught that being gay is something that is accepted by society, therefore greatly reducing hate crimes against homosexuals.

In your speech you stated that "leave and tax breaks actually harms the income of a nation.” [3] I would ask you how maternity leave and tax breaks for marriage harm the income of a nation. The point of a marriage is partially to increase childbirth in a nation and to promote family values, although these are not all the reasons for it. There has been a decline in the amount of marriages since 1990 [8] so many governments, including the US government introduced marriage benefits.[9] Marriage benefits include Marital Tax Deduction, Filing Taxes Jointly, Social Security Benefits, Prenuptial Agreement Benefits, IRA Benefits, Legal Decision-Making Benefits, Inheritance Benefits, Health Insurance Benefits, Paternity Child Benefits, and Leave Benefits.[10] Is it wrong for the homosexuals to be given these benefits, as their union with their partner should be seen as the same as a union between same-sex couples. Is it right to deny homosexual couples the right to their partners inheritance or the decision of health care, because the state will not allow them to unite because the children might be affected?

In your speech you stated “The concept of homosexuality is biologically unnatural, it is factually by the principles of nature, 'incorrect'.” [3] I would like to dispute this point by stating that homosexuality has been observed in over 1500 animal species. [11] This means that homosexuality is not just a human trait or something that is biologically wrong with the humans who have it, but something that is biologically observed in nature, and is absolutely natural.

In your speech you stated “There are no international articles which deem homosexual marriage as a human right.” This is actually not correct. In the Universal declaration of human rights all humans have the Right to Marriage and Family, Right to equality and right to be free from discrimination. [12] If you combine these human rights together we can see that every human has the right to marry because they cannot be discriminated against. Russia has signed the Universal Declaration of Human rights, and as such they must provide these rights to their citizens. [13]

Since Russia must abide by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it is natural to be homosexual, and the children will not be affected by the propaganda, and that hate crimes legislation would benefit the entire Russian society, not just homosexuals, along with the right to receive all the benefits of marriage, side pro firmly believes that this resolution “Russia is Justified for Not Allowing Gay Marriage and Gay Propaganda” must and will fall. Thank you for reading and I look forward to my opponent's argument.


Sources:
[1]http://tinyurl.com...
[2]http://tinyurl.com...
[3]http://tinyurl.com...
[4]http://tinyurl.com...
[5]http://tinyurl.com...
[6]http://tinyurl.com...
[7]http://tinyurl.com...
[8]http://tinyurl.com...
[9]http://tinyurl.com...
[10]http://tinyurl.com...
[11]http://tinyurl.com...
[12]http://tinyurl.com...
[13]http://tinyurl.com...
Debate Round No. 2
Amedexyius

Pro

I thank my opponent for a very strong argument which I enjoyed reading. I'll begin with rebuttals and counters as usual.

Rebuttals and Counter Arguments

My opponent starts off his argument with an unreasonable reliance towards hate crimes as the primary resolution against sexually oriented attacks towards homosexuals. My opponent uses the foundation that the civil rights legislation had an effect in reducing homophobia. Through that statement, Con had used a vague term where "Civil Rights" applies to a lot more than just Hate Crimes and even assuming that my opponent meant to say or was hinting towards Hate Crimes, the Source provided by Con would not support the statement that Hate Crimes "greatly reduced" the attacks. My opponent would continue to argue that "hate crimes legislation will probably significantly reduce homophobia within Russia." being nothing more than a bare assumption. Additionally, as I argued before, my opponent did not refute the socio-political perspective of Russia compared to American legislation and the social contract which differs in other nations [1].

My opponent then makes the argument refuting my statement of Hate Crimes being controversial only with an unfounded statement outlining its 'necessity' without taking into calculation the variables which influence the cultural perspective of the Russian nation, as a whole. Hate crimes do not go without opposition, and it breaks the barriers of perspective and equality when placed into effect where it is not desired and may cause more trouble than expected suppression [2].

Con also makes the statement, again conveniently refusing to acknowledge my point of what exactly got Alexandr Yermoshkin arrested. There is protection by the Russian Constitution, but only if Alexandr Yermoshkin did not commit two separate crimes through a protest which was not held under the district council (Which is what I meant by 'impromptu' [3])
and that any form of protest which was not notified by the local court would then be labeled as a misdemeanor for Disturbing the Peace [4]. I assure my opponent, that breaking the law by organizing an impromptu protest and therefore, disturbing the peace, is not covered by the Russian constitution, and if Yermoshkin took the time to realize that, he wouldn't have been fired for acquiring a criminal record.

Con continues in his speech that I brought about a conclusion from my statement concerning psychological manipulation among minors to be the justification that children should be taught homosexuals are frowned upon. That is a fallacious statement. My next sentence after defining 'child manipulation' was "The concept of homosexuality is biologically [7] *unnatural meaning that while it not inherently morally incorrect which is just from perspective, making morality subjective), it is factually by the principles of nature, 'incorrect'." which in no way says that "homosexuals should be frowned upon". Con would continue this unfounded statement saying that "This...will lead to an increase in hate crimes" although the branch of quotation where my opponent started would topple his own following arguments.

My opponent finishes his argument regarding children and homosexuality with a string of unfounded assumptions regarding mixed statements where children would not be expected to convert sexual orientation but then contradicts himself with the adjective of "most". Beyond this contradiction, my opponent (With the source of pinknews.co.uk, a known internet homosexual biased tabloid) makes a statement that his source did not mention. In fact, my opponent's source actually states that "Lead scientist Alan Sanders said that the work “erodes the notion that sexual orientation is a choice” – but said the study also did not identify a single gene which was the direct cause of homosexuality." [5] which translates into the fact that there can be no solidified conclusions into this statement and my opponent, once again, conveniently decides to skip over arguments from his own sources which would hurt his point.

Continuing, my opponent challenges my statement that "tax breaks" harms a nation's income. Simple economics and the definition of income [6] should be enough to tell you that "a tax break", a break in taxes which is the primary source of income in a nation [7] can harm profits. I also ask my opponent not to commit a blitzkrieg of information on what marriage benefits are. All you did was list them, not prove that they help income and a cheap move like that can harm the voting stage. My opponent finishes his argument which was composed mostly of commas, and forms of marriage benefits at the cost of government expenses, with an emotional pleading question as to why homosexual couples should be denied marriage benefits. A question which was answered with mostly un-refuted statements in Round 1.

My opponent starts his next statement with bringing about false statements from my speech. My opponent did not properly refute my statement regarding the homosexual and biological fact of it being incorrect among terms of reproduction. The only way same-sex reproduction would work in humans would be through gene manipulation and scientific intervention to the maximum detail [8]. I will not refute my opponent's argument that 1500 animals species are known to exhibit forms of homosexuality, but I will say that nature makes mistakes, as is evident with evolutionary natural selection where the weak die off [9]. The animal species where homosexuality is found, their own genes will die off, meaning that while it (animal homosexuality) is found, it is still principally unnatural.

My opponent fell into a trap with the Universal Declaration of Rights. The United Nations understands socio-political perspective, because of their foresight and cultural intelligence, Article 16 never mentions sexual orientation [10]. Their only barriers are "without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion". This leaves it to federal governments to decide the perspective controversy of homosexual marriage, not an international organization. Russia doesn't need to give homosexuals marriage, as you stated.

I thank my opponent for his argument, well versed, and better organized than Round 1.

Sources
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.dictionary.com...
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[5] http://www.pinknews.co.uk...
[6] http://www.taxpolicycenter.org...
[7] http://www.investopedia.com...
[8] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[9] http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
[10] http://www.claiminghumanrights.org...
minddrag

Con

Due to a vacation to a cottage that I had no knowledge of, and I am leaving now, I hereby forfeit this round, and if my opponent wants, will forfeit the debate. I would like to re-debate this topic later if I am forfeiting this debate, as it has been a good debate so far and would love the challenge. So I am forfeiting this round, and if my opponent deems fit, the whole debate. I will be back on monday and if there is time, and my opponent continues the debate, will post an argument then
Debate Round No. 3
Amedexyius

Pro

Unfortunately, in this debate where all rounds matter, the lack of an argument in Round 3 would already cost you the debate. I'm afraid that the entire debate would virtually subject to absolute forfeiture.

Therefore, Extend.
minddrag

Con

I understand and I hereby forfeit this debate. I apologize profusely, but I am currently using a slight bit of data to post this, and will be out of cell phone range soon also. I was not aware that I was leaving the city today, and didn't prepare an argument ahead of time. This was a great debate and I hope I can debate my opponent sometime soon.
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by whiteflame 4 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: migmag// Mod action: Removed<

7 points to Con. Reasons for voting decision: well stated with lots of facts Con

[*Reason for removal*] Not an RFD. Stating that there were "lots of facts" on one side is not enough, especially when that side conceded the debate.
************************************************************************
Posted by whiteflame 4 months ago
whiteflame
*******************************************************************
>Reported vote: DeuceKaboose// Mod action: Removed<

4 points to Con (Conduct, Arguments), 1 point to Pro (S&G). Reasons for voting decision: Although minddrag had to forfeit the last round, I must still give him the debate as Amedexyius unfortunately put biologically incorrect information in his argument and passed it off as fact. Alongside using dog-whistle terms to help back up his argument

[*Reason for removal*] (1) The voter doesn't explain S&G. (2) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter's dislike of a certain tactic used by Pro is not a sufficient basis for awarding these points. The voter must justify the outcome by examining specific arguments made by both sides. Apart from this, Con clearly conceded the debate in the final round. The voter isn't required to award argument points to Pro as a result, but if there's a clear concession in the debate, the voter cannot award argument points to the conceding side.
************************************************************************
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 4 months ago
Ragnar
AmedexyiusminddragTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:31 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession (the one time I award conduct for good behavior, instead of exclusively for bad; however this is at the cost of consideration of arguments, which as he missed half the rounds he could not have won anyway).
Vote Placed by fire_wings 4 months ago
fire_wings
AmedexyiusminddragTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession
Vote Placed by ThinkBig 4 months ago
ThinkBig
AmedexyiusminddragTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 4 months ago
dsjpk5
AmedexyiusminddragTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Concession.