Should Homosexuals be Allowed in the Easter Parade?
Debate Rounds (5)
It is hard to imagine a public exhibition more repulsive than gay pride parades. And now they want to bring this to our Easter Parades?
Who but a maniac thinks this is a good idea?
KingofHarlem forfeited this round.
The question asked is "Should Homosexuals be Allowed in the Easter Parade?" I wanted to wait and see what reasons my opponent gave for wanting them to not be allowed. I will assume that one of the reasons would be the biblical quotes from Leviticus that condemn homosexuality.
The quote from Leviticus, regarding homosexuality being an abomination or detestable act , should have zero relevance to Christians, and therefore no impact on a Christian"s beliefs. When Jesus came and created the new covenant, he rendered the old law obsolete, as it states in Romans 7:6, "But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code" . And Christians have shown a willingness to ignore much of Leviticus, due to the irrelevance of the words in that book. As an example, people who dishonor mother and father are no longer put to death, people who commit adultery are not put to death, having sex with a women during menstruation does no render one cut off from the community, and psychics are not put to death. I could go on, but that list should show the irrelevance of much of that book, so why do people cling to one line of it and use that as proof that homosexuals are detestable?
If the argument is based on homosexuality being a sin, based on what the bible says, even if my above argument is not accepted, there is still much more ground on which the Con side of this argument can stand on.
If the Easter parade is celebrating the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and, in the bible, Jesus was the one to welcome all the outsiders to his company, then even if you believe that homosexuality is a sin, Jesus welcomed sinners into his company. Sharing his message was his attempt at saving them. If one is so inclined to believe that homosexuals are in need of saving, welcoming them into a parade celebrating the death and resurrection of Jesus should be a large step in saving them.
My final argument hinges on the fact that Easter is not solely a Christian holiday. Much like Christmas, there are many pagan stories that formed the basis for the Christian Easter mythology. For example, Ishtar (oddly enough, pronounced Easter) is a pagan goddess of fertility, love, war and sex who has an entire mythology surrounding her that involves eggs and rabbits (something that has never made sense in the Christian mythology) . These are not the only pagan myths that lay the groundwork for the Christian mythology, as there are multiple mythological stories that tie in many of the familiar stories of death and resurrection . So my final point is that Christian values do not determine everything involved with Easter. So even if Christians feel that homosexuality has no place in their celebrations, Easter is not owned solely by Christianity and thus they do not get the final say over who does and does not participate in the celebration. They borrowed many of their stories from elsewhere, and they must accept that they are not the only ones allowed to celebrate at this time of the year. Bunnies, eggs and the name Easter all have very little to do with Christianity, and so the parade should be open to more than just Christians and Christian values.
If my opponent has some other argument stating why homosexuality has no place in a public parade, I would be happy to hear his reasoning. But I must state that neither a personal disagreement with homosexuality, a personal opinion that it just is not natural nor a personal dislike of 'what they do' does not constitute a valid argument.
KingofHarlem forfeited this round.
I have already provided my argument as to why I believe homosexuals should be allowed to participate in the Easter Parade, so now I will just respond to one other point that my opponent made in his opening statement. "It is hard to imagine a public exhibition more repulsive than gay pride parades." I will contend that it is NOT hard to imagine a public exhibition more repulsive than a gay pride parade.
North Korea publicly executes people in their country for watching smuggled television shows. http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
The World Trade Centers were attacked by hijacked planes, killing around 3,000 people.
The Sandy Hook school shootings took the lives of 20 children and 6 adults. http://en.wikipedia.org...
In Rwanda in the mid-90's there were nearly one million people killed in the genocidal mass slaughter of Tutsi people. http://en.wikipedia.org...
My point is, it is not hard to imagine something more repulsive than gay pride parades. I do not even need to imagine, I just need to read a newspaper to see things more repulsive on a daily basis. If someone thinks that there is nothing more repulsive than gay pride parades they are either ignorant to things happening around us in the world or they have their priorities so mixed up that they deserve to be locked up. If someone thinks gay pride parades are worse than mass killings, I would be worried that they think a mass killing of homosexuals at the parade is a logical option, as it is less repulsive than allowing them to continue.
I took up this argument because I find the attitude of my opponent to be much more repulsive than the gay pride parades that he hates, and people who spread hate like this need to stop doing what they are doing. Homosexuals deserve the same rights as everyone else on our planet, and people who preach to withhold those rights have no business doing what they are doing.
And now my opponent abandons all pretense of being a rational human being...
Now long ago the Chicago Catholic Diocese sought and received an injunction against the gay pride parade marching past their churches on Sunday morning. Imagine if my opponent was the lawyer for the parade:
"Your Honor, my client's gay parade is no more repulsive than public executions, the 3000 people killed on 9/11, the Sandy Hook mass murder of 20 kids, Rwanda where one million civilians were killed, the Nazi extermination of 6 million Jews."
No, my opponent wouldn't be laughed out of court because these incidents are beyond tragic, but wouldn't even his gay clients think him the biggest fool that ever was?
Now, this is not a court case. If it was, my second argument would never have been heard because the opposition failing to appear two days in a row would likely render the case null and void. More than that, the initial statement made, "It is hard to imagine a public exhibition more repulsive than gay pride parades" would be laughed off if it was the only line of reasoning used to defend such an outrageous claim.
And my opponent is also misquoting me, which can easily be noted if one was to re-read my statement. I did not say that the gay pride parade is no more repulsive than genocides and mass murders. I said that "it is not hard to imagine something more repulsive than gay pride parades." Though I am a straight man myself, I do not find gay pride parades repulsive. I think it is a wonderful thing that people are getting together and celebrating the decline of attitudes such as my opposition holds. My last argument was purely to show that humanity is clearly capable of imagining (and putting into practice) things far more repulsive than a gay pride parade. If any human believes the gay pride parade to be any more repulsive than any of the examples that I provided previously, I would hope those people be locked away from the rest of humanity, because they would indeed be a danger to many.
Now, I would ask that my opponent actually acknowledge the rest of my arguments and attempt to provide some level of rebuttal or, if only another forfeit is in the plan, please forfeit immediately so that this mockery of a debate can be over with.
Once again my opponent displays his childlike grasp of language and debate. I wrote :
"It is not hard to imagine something more repulsive than gay pride parades"
My opponent responded by listing things more repulsive than gay pride parades. Once again, I'd like to place this in trial court setting. If the lawyer for the Catholic Church says he can't imagine anything more repulsive than gay pride parades and the opposing lawyer objects and says "The Holocaust was more repulsive!" which lawyer is the idiot?
Neither language nor debate are meant to be the clinical exercise my opponent wants you to believe. Hyperbole is acceptable in debate and in the courtroom and that's because the assumption is the judge and jury have brains.
Suppose we parse everything Clarence Darrow said during the Scopes Monkey Trial using the confused language and debate skills of my opponent? The trial would still be in session. When Darrow said, "The trouble with law is lawyers"
he was trying to make a point anyone with a gnat's brain readily grasped. My opponent doesn't.
Certainly, we can all easily imagine things more repulsive than gay pride parades -- but who among us is so dimwitted to think my point is such things don't exist?
Once again I will note that my opponent did absolutely nothing to address the actual argument that I put forth in response to his original claim. My pointing out of things far more repulsive than a gay pride parade was merely a secondary endeavor, to show the absurdity of the original statement that came with no other argument, because I was met with no opposition for two straight rounds of debate. Yet rather than addressing any of the actual issues at hand or offering any sort of conclusion, my opponent has opted to make insults towards myself and ramble on about what would happen in a courtroom if I challenged a hyperbole. For what it is worth, in a court room, if the opposition completely ignored the argument on hand and focused all of his attention on a meaningless side-bar, the opposition would lose the case and likely his job as an attorney.
Since I was the only one to actually offer any information to the topic of the debate, I do not see how the winner of this debate could ever be in question. None of the points I made arguing the topic on hand were even offered a challenge by my opponent. As a conclusion, I will offer a quick summary of those points.
1) Leviticus is no longer relevant to Christians as per Jesus's New Covenant with humanity.
2) Even if homosexuality is still considered a sin, Jesus Christ was the first person to spend time with sinners, when no others would give them a chance.
3) Easter is not purely a Christian holiday, and thus Christian values do not define the day or the parade.
For more information on each of those points, just read my argument from round two.
I thank those who are reading this debate and hope that I argued my point clearly as to why homosexuals should be allowed in the Easter parade. To my opponent, I would recommend actually participating in the debate and addressing the topic on hand. But most of all, I would recommend to stop spreading your hateful, bigoted message against homosexuality because there is no place for that in our world today.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by JMCika 2 years ago
|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||7|
Reasons for voting decision: Homophobe only made one argument.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.