Should Homosexuality be acceptable?
Thanks to my opponent for challenging me.
For the sake of characters, I’ll lay out the debate format first, then provide my opening arguments.
The debate is shared BoP with four argumentative rounds. My opponent has already provided his opening statements. With that out of the way, here are mine:
The question this debate aims to resolve is “should homosexuality be acceptable?” In short, the answer is a complete yes. It would be remiss of society, in America, to deny acceptance of someone based on their orientation. Here is where I clarify that condoning and accepting homosexuality are two different arguments. One may accept homosexuality without condoning it. Just as one may accept religion, without practicing it.
Over the next few rounds, I shall debate the fact that homosexuality should be accepted by society based off two points.
1.) People should accept human characteristics that are out of their control. (i.e. sexuality, race, and gender) Homosexuality is something people are inherently born with and, thereby prohibits them from having control over it.
2.) People should accept matters that have no effect on their personal lives. (i.e. race, gender, sexuality.) Homosexuality does not affect all of society's personal lives, thereby it should not be an issue of acceptence.
I’ll spend the first two rounds addressing each argument, with the last round preserved for rebuttals.
With my opening arguments made, I’ll await for my opponents rebuttals. Good Luck! Let's keep this civil but impassioned!
Your claim that ( "People should accept matters that have no effect on their personal lives. (i.e. race, gender, sexuality. Homosexuality does not affect all of society's personal lives, thereby it should not be an issue of acceptance") is absurd. What about the children, and their children, and their children. What are they being taught. That old saying that he who does not know History is doomed to repeat it is evident in your argument. The fall of every Empire started when it was weakened by moral decay. Don't believe me, go read it for yourself. History reads like a never-ending rerun of the same mistakes being made over and over. I find myself asking why didn't at least one generation learn the lessons from the last. Maybe because the old as well as the unborn just get in the way.
By the way "Religion' is a man made flawed entity whose soul purpose is control. I worship in the realm of TRUTH.
I may have wrote with strong passion, but with the utmost Respect. Thank You.
Thanks to my opponent for his impassioned arguments! It really is a treat when a debate gets heated enough that the voters can see our passion for topics such as this.
Now to my arguments,
My opponent erroneously said the following: “A person is not born homosexual. Your attempt to pass that off as fact with no facts is disappointing. It is a ruse used to avoid the facts and accountability.”
If my opponent had thoroughly read my opening arguments, he should have recognized that I stated in the first round, I’ll explain Point 1, which will include supplemental documents supporting my assertion.
So, with that in mind, here is my argument for the assertion “People should accept human characteristics that are out of their control. (i.e. sexuality, race, and gender) Homosexuality is something people are inherently born with and, thereby prohibits them from having control over it.”
While the notion that people are born homosexual is more often controversial than conclusive, there are plenty of studies and news articles that comment on the potential validity of it.
A few quotations from separate articles are:
“Humans aren't the only species that has same-sex pairings. For instance, female Japanese macaques may sometimes participate in energetic sexual stimulation. Lions, chimpanzees, bison and dolphins have also been spotted in same-sex pairings. And nearly 130 bird species have been observed engaging in sexual activities with same-sex partners.” 
“Scientists have found even more evidence that sexual orientation is largely determined by genetics, not choice. That can undermine a major argument against the LBGT community that claims that these people are choosing to live unnaturally.” 
“We know, from many twin and adoption studies, that sexual preference has a genetic component.” 
“Scientists have uncovered the strongest evidence yet in the debate of whether people are ‘born gay’.” 
While these articles may appear subjective and speculative, they provide sufficient reasoning that people are born gay.
Another compelling source, one that actually provides scientific data, is the widely groundbreaking study Psychological Medicine. In the study, the abstract concludes the following: “Conclusions Results, especially in the context of past studies, support the existence of genes on pericentromeric chromosome 8 and chromosome Xq28 influencing development of male sexual orientation.” 
While there is no irrefutable evidence that a person is born gay, as scientific studies continue to evolve, the validity of this notion because more and more accepted.
Since I managed explain point 1 in under 8000 characters, I’ll use the remaining characters to refute a few points my opponent arose earlier.
The first paragraph of my opponents second round ignores a multitude of facts. 1.) he fails to address the idea of infertility among monogamous, heterosexual marriages. If they cannot reproduce, does that make them equally abominable? 2.) He fails to provide sufficient evidence that anything outside of marriage is moral perversion. 3.) His last few lines “STOP, LOOK AROUND, this country is a freaking mess and getting worse by the day while the unaware celebrates Gay Marriage. It's akin to partying on the deck of the Titanic pitched at forty degrees.” Should be ignored based on the fact that they are nothing but political theater designed to arouse your interest. There’s nothing factual, evidentiary, or even pertinent about those statements.
“The fall of every Empire started when it was weakened by moral decay. Don't believe me, go read it for yourself. History reads like a never-ending rerun of the same mistakes being made over and over.” While there may be some validity in this arguments, my opponent has 1.) failed, himself, to provide any evidence that this assertion is true, and 2.) failed to reason how this directly relates to homosexuality.
In short, my opponent has agreed to shared BoP, meaning he must also prove why his viewpoints are valid. So, if he is going to insist that I bring forth evidence, he must do so as well.
Ramatamn forfeited this round.
Since my opponent has failed to post arguments for this round, I’ll do him the favor of extending any previous arguments I’ve made and save my final rebuttals and arguments for the last round.
I do this so that my opponent may have a fair fight. I’m sure he’s just busy, and will return and post new arguments in the final round.
‘till then, good luck!
Ramatamn forfeited this round.
Since my opponent has forfeited the past two rounds, while still not refuting any of my assertions, he should not be given any points for this debate. It’s a shame too. I was looking forward to a well fought debate. But, alas, I’ll try for better luck next time.
By all means Vote Pro!
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||1|