The Instigator
Thestudentpolitician
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
james14
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Should Homosexual marriage and rights be legalized? ( Aside from Supreme Court ruling.)

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 2 votes the winner is...
james14
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/30/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 861 times Debate No: 64244
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (4)
Votes (2)

 

Thestudentpolitician

Pro

Homosexual marriage and rights should be legalized so that they are equal to that of the heterosexual people. This comes from the stand point of Constitutional basis of equality for all. Take into consideration seperation of Church and State and past cases of similar discriminating actions.
james14

Con

Thank you for starting this debate. I REALLY hope you will finish it, or at least formally concede if you realize the pointlessness of arguing your position. :] My last debate only went two out of five rounds. I hope that will not be the case here.

I intend to jump right into why I believe that homosexual marriage (and rights) should not be legalized. This is a controversial topic, but be aware that I am not purposely trying to offend anyone. I appreciate the opportunity to have an intelligent discussion of this subject.

I will demonstrate, prove if you will, that homosexuality is harmful and should not be endorsed.

First, in starting, we must accept that there is a moral law. Or, (atheists), if you will, a bias toward man that enables us to objectively judge every behavior as either harmful or helpful (or possibly neutral) in reference to both the good of both humanity in general and the instigator in particular. In terms of this standard, we shall call that which helps humanity "good" and that which harms humanity "evil" or "bad" or "immoral."

IF my opponent refuses to accept this, then we are unable to argue. In saying that homosexual marriage SHOULD be legalized, we are in effect saying that it would be immoral to not legalize homosexual marriage, and one cannot promulgate the "morality" of something without an external frame of reference.

Agreed?

Good. My position will be that homosexuality is harmful to both society and the individual, and therefore should be considered as immoral from an atheistic perspective. Since my opponent is an atheist, the Christian perspective need not be considered. Also, I will argue that marriage is not a "right" such as the right to life, but a privilege or endorsement that is offered by the government in order to promote and protect a particular union. Since homosexuality is dangerous it should not be divorced.

Homosexuality Is Harmful. Proof:

Comparing obituaries from homosexual journals to obituaries from regular newspapers, a study done in 1994 (1) found that the median age of death for homosexual men WHO DID NOT HAVE AIDS (42) was 32 years less than the median age of death for married men (75), and 15 years less than the median age of death for divorced or single men (57). Homosexual men with aids died earlier, on average. And, actually, this study found that homosexuals with long-term partners, even those without AIDS, died even earlier. This is likely because long-term homosexual partners are less careful when having sex, which leads to higher incidences of dangerous activity. The latter correlation is not favorable towards those who advocate legalizing homosexual marriage, because it indicates that homosexual "marriage" is even more dangerous than "single" homosexual activity.

The latter point is important, as homosexuals often claim that affording them the privilege of marriage would prevent the promiscuity that often brings with it STD"s. However, BOTH states are dangerous (one might almost say deadly) to the individual.

Homosexuality, in and of itself, can result in hemorrhoids, warts, fissures, hemorrhaging, cancer, AIDS, Chlamydia trachomatis, Cryptosporidium, Giardia lamblia, Herpes simplex virus, Human papilloma virus, Isospora belli, Microsporidia, Gonorrhea, Viral hepatitis types B & C, Syphilis. (2) These pernicious and disgusting diseases are also found among promiscuous heterosexuals, but the rate of incidence is far higher among homosexuals. This contributes to the shorter lifespan I mentioned before.

Indeed, the Center for Disease Control says the following: "While anyone who has sex can get an STD [Sexually Transmitted Disease], sexually active gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (MSM) are at greater risk. In addition to having higher rates of syphilis, more than half of all new HIV infections occur among MSM. Many factors contribute to the higher rates of STDs among MSM: Higher rates of HIV and STDs among MSM increase a person's risk of coming into contact with an infected partner and becoming infected themselves. Certain behaviors- such as not using condoms regularly and having anal sex - increase STD risk. Homophobia, stigma, and discrimination can negatively influence the health of gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men." (3)

Now, as the last sentence testifies, this is not an anti-gay website. (There is no proof for the latter allegation, by the way.) It is a medical fact that homosexuality leads to STD"s. Homosexuality, when seen in this light, is more dangerous than many drugs. At least they can"t give you AIDS. Yet why do we prohibit drugs and permit homosexuality?

Here I will address the common misconception that because homosexuals claim they were "born this way" they have a right to do their thing. Law (or morality) can in no way excuse conduct on the basis of genetic tendencies. If someone was born a kleptomaniac, that can hardly give him/her impunity to steal! Sexual predisposition may or may not be a choice; sexual behavior is. People can have fulfilling lives without sex. I, for one, have!

In denying homosexuals marriage with members of their own sex, it is also a fallacy to state that they are being "discriminated" against. Homosexuals can marry, just like the rest of the population. The only qualifier is that they have to marry a member of the opposite sex! No; it is not homosexuals who are discriminated against, but rather the ACTIVITY of homosexuality.

Before proceeding, I will list some more reasons homosexuality is harmful:

Homosexuals cannot have children. This is emotionally harmful.

Homosexual relationships are much shorter than heterosexual relationships. Only 12% of homosexual relationships entered into with intent of commitment lasted more than 3 years, according to the Kinsey Institute. (4) This is also emotionally harmful.

Psychologically, homosexual men are 6 times more likely to have attempted suicide. (5)

The Kinsey study also revealed that 43% of homosexuals surveyed had had sex with 500 or more partners. 79% of respondents said that over half of their partners were people with whom they had had sex only once before. Such promiscuity is dangerous and inevitably will lead to STD"s. Besides, this is an indication of both destructive hedonism and an unsatisfying behavioral pattern.

Lastly, homosexuality is immoral because it is not only unnatural, but also harmful. The "eyeglass-nose" analogy does not hold up. The organ used for homosexual sex is damaged, so much so that it can often not function properly for its natural purpose. (Tried to be discrete there.)

Is Homosexuality Therefore Something To Be Endorsed?

Obviously not. You"ve seen the evidence. I believe it should be prohibited, just like marijuana and heroin. That it should be adopted as a reasonable base for marriage? Unthinkable. I will demonstrate why.

Marriage is a social label for the government-endorsed union of two consenting adults in a (at least previously) heterosexual relationship. Google defines marriage as: "the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or, in some jurisdictions, two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship." (6)

Marriage is primarily a legal institution. Without a marriage certificate, you are not married. So why do we have the institution of marriage? It is an endorsement of a particular lifestyle, that lifestyle being a long-term mutually amorous relationship that is, quite simply, the bedrock of society. Marriage (normal marriage) is the best place for a child to be reared (7), and without children there can be no sustainable society. That is why, throughout history, the "heterosexual family" has been endorsed by way of the title and privileges that marriage confers. Society should morally endorse at least this kind of marriage for that reason: society will collapse otherwise. Marriage does confer benefits; homosexuals would be the last to deny that. And I claim that homosexual relationships are not worthy of endorsement.

This is not to say that marriage should be denied to sterile couples; simply, however, children are the reason marriage is endorsed and the family the foundation of civilization.

A summary of my reasoning:

1) Homosexuality is harmful (I have proven this at great length.)

2) Harmful activities should not be endorsed (I draw this from our discussion of objective morals.)

3) Marriage is a government-sponsored endorsement (I have just shown that.)

4) Therefore, legalizing homosexual marriage would be endorsing homosexuality.

5) Therefore, homosexual marriage SHOULD NOT be legalized.

Pro will have to refute either my premises or my reasoning to prove me wrong.

Footnotes:

(1) Paul Cameron, Ph.D., William Playfair, M.D., and Stephen Wellum, "The Longevity of Homosexuals: Before and After the Aids Epidemic," Omega Journal of Death and Dying, 29:3 (1994): 249-272. A more recent study was published in 2005 by Psychological Reports (2005; 96:693-697) and found similar results.

(2) http://barbwire.com...

(3) http://www.cdc.gov...

(4) Alan P. Bell and Martin S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women, (New York, Simon and Shuster, 1978) p.314

(5) Bell and Weinberg, Homosexualities, p.308

(6) https://www.google.com...

(7) http://nationalmarriageproject.org...
Debate Round No. 1
Thestudentpolitician

Pro

I believe that we should as a species try to better ourselves as you have previously said, but we need to adress on what level we are going to do that. Is discriminating against a group of people a better advancment in our mental and emotional well being? I believe that only the strongest survive wether that be mentally or physically so can i say that the males that get STD's are the weaker ones? Also let us not forget our female friends and that they do not contract or have a higher rate of physical illnesses.

The belief that suicide among homosexuals is increased because they are homosexual is a ridiculous notion. When a person is repressed their whole life and can not be with the one they love they destroy themself; heterosexuals would do the same if put in that situation. We have to look at suicide and depression it's self before making any assumptions. A person with depression will have a pessimistic outlook on life, when a person "Comes out of the closet" usually they are comfortable and happy about this; is it not the people that shun them and lash at them for being openly gay
. When they are told several times that they are simply confused they doubt themself not based off of if it is better for the human race but because they are told so by misinformed people. Lack of interest is another property of depression, most homosexuals are not losing intrest in life or with their partner they are shunned from having a social life. And now sadness is my final point of depression, are you predisposed to be sad if you are a homosexual? I think not i think that it is being told that they are freaks and what they are doing is wrong plants that seed into them.

Now i will tackle your concerns on the health of gay men. If the homosexual community applied safe sex practices to their life style like hetrosexuals do would this not help? Many people want to believe that STD's arise from any fecal matter in one mans rectum, but it does not it is the same as it is in heterosexuals, one person must have it already. So the application of condoms and monogamy would greatly reduce that number would it not? I also would ask you to give me your definition of promiscuous in homosexuals and heterosexuals. Men and women who practice rectal intercourse are at the same risks that homosexual men are; the practice of rectal sex is becoming more popular in teens and young adults, should it be outlawed and how would you monitor it? Over 1500 animal species practice homosexuality yet we are the only ones to reject it. Now you might say thats because they're lesser beings but if we look at wolves they will single animals that are harmful to a pack out so they know what harms them and doesn't, so why do they not single out homosexual wolves if it is harmful?

I assume that you believe evolution is real since it is scientifically proven. I now ask you this, In herding mammals homosexuality is common to prevent over population, Could homosexuality be a way to help curve the population growth? We all know that the world will not sustain humanity at the rate that we are growing so for the better of all could the few deaths in the unsafe sex homosexual community justify a world which we have a longer survival of the whole population?
james14

Con

I thank Pro for his/her timely response.


This is what I concluded with in my last post:

A summary of my reasoning:

1) Homosexuality is harmful (I have proven this at great length.)

2) Harmful activities should not be endorsed (I draw this from our discussion of objective morals.)

3) Marriage is a government-sponsored endorsement (I have just shown that.)

4) Therefore, legalizing homosexual marriage would be endorsing homosexuality.

5) Therefore, homosexual marriage SHOULD NOT be legalized.


Pro must refute either my premises or my reasoning in order to refute my argument. So far he has done neither.

Pro begins by saying:

I believe that we should as a species try to better ourselves as you have previously said, but we need to adress [sic] on what level we are going to do that. Is discriminating against a group of people a better advancment [sic] in our mental and emotional well being? [sic] I believe that only the strongest survive wether [sic] that be mentally or physically so can i [sic] say that the males that get STD's are the weaker ones? [sic] Also let us not forget our female friends and that they do not contract or have a higher rate of physical illnesses.”

(Note: Pro’s punctuation, grammar, and spelling are rather atrocious. I would request voters to consider this, and I would also request that Pro himself/herself would try to be more coherent and legible.)

Now, I was very careful to note that legislating against homosexuality is not discriminating against PEOPLE; it is discriminating against a BEHAVIOR. An insidious, pernicious, and downright bad behavior, to be more precise.

In reference to Pro’s comment/question about males with STD’s being weaker, I must say that STD’s can affect one whether one is strong or weak. Is Pro is implying that such individuals are being weeded out by natural selection? I would state that they are simply suffering the consequences of their alternate lifestyle, which are often not pretty. If anything, this shows that nature conspires against the behavior of homosexuality and that it is singularly “unnatural” since so many of those who practice it die early. (Activities that set the individual against the laws of nature are often harmful.) Other behaviors, such as hitting oneself repeatedly on the head with a coconut until a concussion is induced, or inhaling narcotics, have a similar effect and are as a result frowned upon. Why not homosexuality?

And lesbians – the median age of death for lesbians was 44. I think the STD issue is equally valid here. Need I say more?

Yes, the charge that homosexuality is correlated with suicidal tendencies is most prone to accusations of “oppression.” Maybe that is, in part, the case. Maybe, also, individuals who choose to practice homosexuality are in general more prone to psychological issues. The question is not important.

By the way, maybe a gay person will be “comfortable and happy” when they “come out of the closet.” But what is better?

(A) Being comfortable and happy for two decades until you die of some horrible STD; or

(B) Being “uncomfortable” and “unhappy,” but living fifty more years?

Your defense could be equally applied to drug use. The point is: - being comfortable and happy is useless when you’re dead. I am reminded of Aldous Huxley’s “A Brave New World,” where people imbibe a substance called soma that shortens their lifespans considerably and dulls their senses, but makes them happy while they live. I, contrary to their government, believe distributing such a substance or condoning similar practices is immoral. Safety should come before temporal and fleeting happiness. After all, who knows how happy homosexuals actually are? The suicidal correlation does not contribute to the “happy and comfortable theory.”

“[M]ost homosexuals are not losing intrest [sic] in life or with their partner they are [sic] shunned from having a social life.”

Really? Nowadays homosexuality is becoming more and more accepted, although I believe it shouldn’t as I have already demonstrated at great length. However, at this time more than any other in history homosexuals are “tolerated” and their opponents are not. I don’t think most homosexuals are being “shunned.” In newspapers and advice columns homosexuality is treated mainly as just another alternative to heterosexuality. One cannot publicly condemn it without being called a hatemonger. Show me someone who calls homosexuals “freaks” and I will show you someone about to get sued for hate speech.

Yes, it would help if homosexuals applied “safe sex practices.” However, homosexuality is inherently dangerous. In fact, homosexuals in “long-term relationships” are more likely to die young because they are more likely to engage in unsafe sexual practices. If you take this into account, the safest thing is to ban same-sex marriage for purely safety reasons. Either way, homosexuality is deadly.

Promiscuous: “characterized by or involving indiscriminate mingling or association, especially having sexual relations with a number of partners on a casual basis.” (1) Promiscuous individuals have sex with hundreds of partners.

Rectal sex is dangerous to the rectum; its thin internal wall is easily ruptured, which is why homosexual contact provides an extremely efficient means of transmitting disease. I believe this form of sex is wrong, both morally and practically, and that it should be, maybe not outlawed, but discouraged, especially among minors. The widespread condoning and encouraging of homosexuals to “be what they are” is wrong. But acceptance has become so widespread that many homosexuals do not realize what a risk they’re taking.

Discouragement, education, and banning of gay bars would go a long way. I do not know whether a law against this form of intercourse would be a good idea, but I do know our current “tolerance” is immoral and unsafe.

Besides, the enforcement of a law has little to do with the moral issue. Laws against suicide are unenforceable, yet they are moral in that they prevent death. Accepting the atheist’s professed moral position leads clearly to this stance.

“Now you might say thats [sic] because they're lesser beings but if we look at wolves they will single animals that are harmful to a pack out so they know what harms them and doesn't, so why do they not single out homosexual wolves if it is harmful?”

I do not fully understand Pro’s reasoning here. Animals also kill one another, and we all know about lemmings. Just because wolves do something does not mean it is moral or commendable.

I do not believe in evolution, and it is not scientifically proven. Pro should challenge me to a debate about that! Pro claims that homosexuality could be a way to help curb population growth. Whether or not that is the case, his argument is faulty and unfounded. America’s birth rate is around 1.88. (2) Generally, a birth rate of 2.5 is needed to sustain a population. In fact, it is widely known that the earth’s population is about to start shrinking. (3)

So you see that we need more babies, not less. And Pro’s argument (could the few deaths in the unsafe sex homosexual community justify a world which [sic] we have a longer survival of the whole population?) is not very effective for his position either way. According to his stance (the world is overcrowded so it’s okay if some people die) people should be encouraged to kill themselves. In fact, Pro is more a homophobe than I am, as he seems to like the idea of homosexuals dying, and, far from trying to prevent it, just wants to let “nature run its course” and allow homosexuals to foolishly continue down the path to their own early deaths.

Such a stand is immoral.

I am advocating the more compassionate stance of discouraging such a harmful, deadly practice. “Live and let-die” is not “tolerant”; it is immoral. We have a moral duty to discourage homosexuality due simply to the harm it causes.

What society could survive if everyone was a homosexual?

What parents hope their children grow up homosexuals?

What doctor would recommend homosexuality as preferable to regular, marital sex?

Homosexuality is a practice that causes much harm, and it is our moral responsibility to avoid endorsing and normalizing something that causes so many deaths.

If you bring natural selection in, you could argue that nature has selected homosexuality to die out, since homosexuals will by definition be unable to reproduce. In fact, homosexuality can hardly be genetic since the homosexual “gene” would have been eliminated by now!

A summary of my reasoning from the last round:

1) Homosexuality is harmful (Pro has not succeeded in disproving this.)

2) Harmful activities should not be endorsed –(no challenge)

3) Marriage is a government-sponsored endorsement –(no challenge.)

4) Therefore, legalizing homosexual marriage would be endorsing homosexuality.

5) Therefore, homosexual marriage SHOULD NOT be legalized.

(1) http://dictionary.reference.com...

(2) https://www.google.com...'s%20birth%20rate

(3) http://www.slate.com...

Debate Round No. 2
Thestudentpolitician

Pro

Thestudentpolitician forfeited this round.
james14

Con

Great. It seems I have found another forfeiting debater who cannot answer my arguments.

I think this means I win.
Debate Round No. 3
Thestudentpolitician

Pro

Thestudentpolitician forfeited this round.
james14

Con

No argument on Pro's part.
Debate Round No. 4
Thestudentpolitician

Pro

Thestudentpolitician forfeited this round.
james14

Con

Waiting . . .
Debate Round No. 5
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by Saska 2 years ago
Saska
The sources than Con uses in this debate are atrocious. Barbwire is a hardcore Christian opinion column that offers only the information that Christians want to hear. Sources 4 and 5 are both the same source, and it's a book written in 1978. You can't pull meaningful statistics about homosexuality from over 35 years ago. Commenting on the duration of homosexual relationships or on the amount of sexual partners in the 1970's is like questioning a job applicant about the 15 years they spent unemployed prior to their 16th birthday. When it is not acceptable to have a relationship in public, of course the relationships won't last long. And of course they will have more partners when you can't openly have one long term partner.

Con is trying to paint homosexuality to be some super dangerous activity, but he refuses to look at context. Of course more homosexuals are likely to be suicidal when they are oppressed, persecuted and segregated. It's true that anal sex is more likely to spread disease, but it doesn't create the diseases. If people are smart and careful, they can have perfectly safe homosexual sex. The problem is the lack of attention paid to that issue for so long because of our culture's unwillingness to accept it as natural. AIDS is a huge issue all over Africa right now, not because they are all gay, but because they are constantly being fed false information about condoms and other methods of safe sex. It's not the sex that is the issue... It's cultural beliefs and practices that interfere with promoting understanding.

The worst thing about Con's argument is that he is good at sounding intelligent even when he is completely full of crap, so people looking for reasons to keep believing in this idiotic, bigoted nonsense will read his BS and think they have more facts and arguments to promote their hateful, bigoted agenda of preventing homosexuals from having rights.
Posted by Nicoszon_the_Great 2 years ago
Nicoszon_the_Great
This is an absolutely bigoted debate, I hope that someone who actually knows what they're talking about challenges this guy on this.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
Promiscuity is frequent but "indiscriminate" sexual behavior. And it the behavior not the person's sexuality that puts them at risk. Homophobia encompasses a range of negative attitudes and feelings toward homosexuality It can be expressed as antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, or hatred, may be based on irrational fear, and is sometimes related to religious beliefs. Homophobia is observable in critical and hostile behavior such as discrimination and violence on the basis of sexual orientations that are non-heterosexual. the FBI's national hate crime statistics found that LGBT people were "far more likely than any other minority group in the United States to be victimized by violent hate crime. james14 you are a by definition a homophobe. And know very little about human sexuality. check this out it my increase your understanding. http://www.scientificamerican.com...
Posted by Anthonyd114 2 years ago
Anthonyd114
The only people that believe homosexuality is wrong are hard line theists.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
Thestudentpoliticianjames14Tied
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:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by Tweka 2 years ago
Tweka
Thestudentpoliticianjames14Tied
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: FF