The Instigator
bubbatheclown
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
RowanM
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

Someone Should Create a Separate Nation For People of "Alternate Sexualities"

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
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 1 vote the winner is...
RowanM
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/11/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 789 times Debate No: 48885
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (16)
Votes (1)

 

bubbatheclown

Pro

I will be arguing in this debate that the US (or some other nation) should create a nation that will serve as a safe haven for LGBTQPZN (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual, Questioning, Pedophile, Zoophile, and Necrophile) people from all over the world. It'd be a nation set aside specifically for these people. Straight or asexual people would be second-class citizens in this nation, in the same way that LGBTQPZN people are in many parts of the world. I will also discuss which part(s) of the world this nation could be established in.

Burden of Proof will be shared, first round is for acceptance. Anyone may accept this debate challenge, regardless of your stance on the issue of gay rights.
I await a worthy opponent who dares challenge me.
RowanM

Con

Alright let's go.
Debate Round No. 1
bubbatheclown

Pro

All right, let's say you live in Uganda and you're caught being gay. You'll probably be imprisoned for life. If you're in Saudi Arabia, well, you get stoned or hung.
But why do that when you can just deport them to this new gay country? After all:
1. A single plane ride would be cheaper than life imprisonment
2. It'd be the humane thing to do

According to international law, any country that had anti-gay laws would be required to deport their "happy" people to this new nation. And then again, if your country tolerated the presence of gays, this wouldn't affect you.
Also, many nations currently have a ban on LGBT behavior, so such a nation would be a safe haven for them to engage in their homosexual behavior.
http://76crimes.com...

Now, let's discuss the location of this theoretical nation. This can be problematic, considering there are an estimated 9 million LGBT people in the United States alone (not counting sex offenders and male prostitutes).

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Since the world is a lot bigger than the United States, this country would need to be able to fit a LOT of people.

I considered the US State of Vermont being a possible place where the LGBTQPZN people would be allowed to make their own nation out of, but that area is far too small to accommodate the world's LGBTQPZN population.
So, I suggested we give the LGBTQPZN people Alaska. There's less than a million people living on that huge strip of land. And since it's so close to Russia, a country that's not exactly gay-friendly, it'd improve relations because the Russians would be happy to have a place to deport all their gays to instead of providing for them in prison indefinitely.

My point is that homosexual people, instead of having their heads chopped off in Saudi Arabia, would be deported to live in Alaska. The population of this new nation would not waste away because there'd always be new people from the Middle East and Africa being sent there.
In this nation, they'd be able to forge their own destinies. As long as they stayed in Alaska, they'd have complete freedom. Plus, conservatives won't have to deal with gay people any more and gay people won't have to deal with conservatives any more.

If this scenario is carried out, everybody wins. They'd be deported from their Middle Eastern homes, but it's better than being beheaded.
RowanM

Con

I'm going to start off this debate by saying I have no intention of offending any cultural group in the world, I'm just being realistic. Since I'm taking the con side it will be extremely diffictult to defend my point without sounding racist.

Let's start with the location, Alaska. You say it's really close to Russia but is it? Most people in Russia live in the far west. You would have to travel all the way over Siberia to reach it, which is approximately 13 million square kilometers. About half the world. So you send all of them over there, what about people in Alaska? Will they just get sent away? Or will they just have to accept pedophiles and necrophiles in their community? That sounds very unfair to me.
Not to mention that the most alternate people would come from Africa and the Middle East. How will they adjust to the climate? They can get sick and cold, they might even freeze to death. That sounds pretty ironic considering it's the "humane thing to do".

So let's pretend all the inhabitants are magically fine with it, and let's pretend the extreme cold isn't a problem. Then they'll have to build a society. I imagine that will be very hard considering nobody can start families because there are no straight men and women. There will be no biological children, and in the very rare case that there are, they will be constantly threatened by pedophiles walking around.

Okay, so let's ignore that problem as well. So they alternate people have built a community and they're tired of eating all the reindeer and crab legs. They want some potatoes and rice. How will they get that? Do they have money? What's their currency? The American dollar? I doubt the evil conservatives would want to fund a state completely made up by alternate sexualities.

I'm looking forward to round 3.
Debate Round No. 2
bubbatheclown

Pro

"Let's start with the location, Alaska. You say it's really close to Russia but is it? Most people in Russia live in the far west. You would have to travel all the way over Siberia to reach it, which is approximately 13 million square kilometers. About half the world."
What are planes for?

"So you send all of them over there, what about people in Alaska? Will they just get sent away? Or will they just have to accept pedophiles and necrophiles in their community? That sounds very unfair to me."

Well, there's very few people in that huge strip of land. The state of Rhode Island has more people than Alaska does, and that's saying a lot! The Alaskan denizens could easily be relocated to two or three cities, and the LGBT nation could have all the rest.

"Not to mention that the most alternate people would come from Africa and the Middle East. How will they adjust to the climate? They can get sick and cold, they might even freeze to death. That sounds pretty ironic considering it's the "humane thing to do."

They can adjust. Don't forget that Europeans (a peoples from a cold climate) went to Africa (a very hot place). Granted, Africa was called "White Man's Grave" because of this, but today we have heaters and stuff like that which could prevent this from happening.

"So let's pretend all the inhabitants are magically fine with it, and let's pretend the extreme cold isn't a problem. Then they'll have to build a society."

Dude, I'm not suggesting they start from scratch! There'd be houses, towns, heaters, air conditioners etc. These basics would be provided as donations by several governments.

"I imagine that will be very hard considering nobody can start families because there are no straight men and women."

Correct, but there will always be new arrivals.

"There will be no biological children, and in the very rare case that there are, they will be constantly threatened by pedophiles walking around."

What's the matter, feeling Pedophobic? It's just an alternate lifestyle, right? They're born that way, right?

"Okay, so let's ignore that problem as well. So they alternate people have built a community and they're tired of eating all the reindeer and crab legs. They want some potatoes and rice. How will they get that? Do they have money? What's their currency? The American dollar? I doubt the evil conservatives would want to fund a state completely made up by alternate sexualities."

Ignoring your Conservaphobic remark, Alaska has tons of oil. The LGBT people would make their living pumping the stuff out of the ground and exporting it all around the world. With the money they'd make they could import whatever food they want.
Plus, I'm sure that even in Alaska there's some kind of crop or edible substance which can be grown.

I'm looking forward to my opponent's rebuttal.
RowanM

Con

What are planes for?
I was actually aiming at the fact that Alaska is not close to inhabited Russia at all, which you suggested. So Russian homosexuals would have a long trip as well as other countries.

The Alaskan citizens could easily be recolated to two or three cities, and the LGBT nation could have all the rest.
I see you're trying very hard to sweep this under the carpet, but it's immensly unfair to just relocate all of its citizens, no matter how much there are. You want to force them out of their home, where they're familiar, and dump all of them in two or three cities. This sudden gigantic growth of the cities may cause a temporary unemployment and trouble. And they can't get back to where they live because their town is now inhabited by people who have sex with little kids, animals and dead people. Nice, huh?

..but today we have heaters and stuff like that which could prevent this from happening.
Don't underestimate one's adjustment to his natural climate. The American biologist Joel Allen researched the anatomic built of people in relation to their environment. He concluded that people in Africa are taller and more slender because they take up more space and therefore lose more bodywarmth, which is ideal in hot climates. At the same time, people in cold climates are generally shorter and wider, preserving bodywarmth. Their bodies are not meant for the exact opposite climate. And yes, while radiation may prevent hypothermia, it will still be very uncomfortable.
http://anthro.palomar.edu...

There'd be houses, towns, heaters, air conditioners etc. These basics would be provided as donation by several governments.
And which governments would those be? Will it be the American government, whose citizens' lives in Alaska you've just destroyed? Or will it be the European government, who will have no participation in this since they accept alternate sexualities? Maybe the Russian government will want to donate? Oh no, I can't imagine they would. The middle east? Would they be willing to donate money to an entire community which they would reject in their own countries?

Feeling pedophobic? They're born that way, right?
My opinion on the matter is not important, the fact remains that these children will be constantly threatened. And for the record, if pedophobic means I wouldn't want a pedophile in my town near my children, then yes I guess I am. Tolerance only goes so far.

Alaska has tons of Oil. The LGBT people would make their living pumping the stuff out of the ground and exporting it.
And do you think BP will be happy with the LGBT people stealing a large sum of their profit? The Alaskan oil refinery is managed by the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. This organisation is made up of BP, ConocoPhilips, Exxon Mobil and many more. I'm not an expert on the matter, but I doubt they would be fine with the local community stealing their oil and selling it to other countries.

Plus, I'm sure that even in Alaska there's some kidn of crop or edible substance which can be grown.
Might be, but no tomatoes, rice, potatoes, bananas and many more foods we take for granted.
Debate Round No. 3
bubbatheclown

Pro

"I was actually aiming at the fact that Alaska is not close to inhabited Russia at all, which you suggested. So Russian homosexuals would have a long trip as well as other countries."
Okay, I can concede this much.

"I see you're trying very hard to sweep this under the carpet, but it's immensly unfair to just relocate all of its citizens, no matter how much there are. You want to force them out of their home, where they're familiar, and dump all of them in two or three cities. This sudden gigantic growth of the cities may cause a temporary unemployment and trouble. And they can't get back to where they live because their town is now inhabited by people who have sex with little kids, animals and dead people. Nice, huh?"

Sure, there'd be some unemployment and housing troubles. However, it'd be quite easy to fit 750,000 people in one city. It'd be less than a third the population of Chicago, and there could be two or three cities.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
However, I suppose you could exclude the Pedophiles and allow the LGBT community and the natives to coexist.

"Don't underestimate one's adjustment to his natural climate. The American biologist Joel Allen researched the anatomic built of people in relation to their environment. He concluded that people in Africa are taller and more slender because they take up more space and therefore lose more bodywarmth, which is ideal in hot climates. At the same time, people in cold climates are generally shorter and wider, preserving bodywarmth. Their bodies are not meant for the exact opposite climate. And yes, while radiation may prevent hypothermia, it will still be very uncomfortable."

Like I said, it'd be a refuge for persecuted LGBTQPZN people. If you live in a gay-friendly nation, you wouldn't have to go here.
And if climate were trouble, a different location would be picked, but I'm not quite ready to do that yet.
It would be uncomfortable, but it'd be better than being stoned.

"And which governments would those be? Will it be the American government, whose citizens' lives in Alaska you've just destroyed? Or will it be the European government, who will have no participation in this since they accept alternate sexualities? Maybe the Russian government will want to donate? Oh no, I can't imagine they would. The middle east? Would they be willing to donate money to an entire community which they would reject in their own countries?"

Most likely the US Government. We're already wasting huge amounts of money anyway, so why not waste our money on something worthwhile?

"My opinion on the matter is not important, the fact remains that these children will be constantly threatened. And for the record, if pedophobic means I wouldn't want a pedophile in my town near my children, then yes I guess I am. Tolerance only goes so far."

I was just messing with you here.

"And do you think BP will be happy with the LGBT people stealing a large sum of their profit? The Alaskan oil refinery is managed by the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. This organisation is made up of BP, ConocoPhilips, Exxon Mobil and many more. I'm not an expert on the matter, but I doubt they would be fine with the local community stealing their oil and selling it to other countries."

Okay then, perhaps they'd be required to hire LGBTQPZN workers exclusively. But in any case, if the land is allotted to this new nation, then it's their right to control the oil, not the BP's right. The US Government could stand up for this new country.

"Might be, but no tomatoes, rice, potatoes, bananas and many more foods we take for granted."

True, but that's what the exports are for. Or, they could adjust to eating local food, like the European settlers in America did when they went West.

Vote Pro!
RowanM

Con

Sure, there'd be some unemployment and housing troubles. However, it'd be quite easy to fit 750,000 people in one city. It'd be less than a third the population of Chicago, and there could be two or three cities. However, I suppose you could exclude the Pedophiles and allow the LGBT community and the natives to coexist.
What am I hearing now? Do you want to exclude the pedophiles from the community you made for them? That's rich. Why don't you take all of them and put them in a seperate state.

Most likely the US Government. We're already wasting huge amounts of money anyway, so why not waste our money on something worthwile?
I don't have to out that's a logical fallacy. If you feel like funding the LGBT state is a waste, then you're arguing on the wrong side. I also somehow doubt the US government would want to give money to the people who forced their citizens out of their homes. Deja vous?

If the land is allotted to this new nation, then it's their right to control the oil, not the BP's right.
The Trans-Alaska Pipeline system has bought the land for oil drillage, it's their right to control it. They paid for it.

That's what exports are for. Or they could adjust to eating local food.
With what money will they buy these foreign foods? With oil money they can't get?


Pro has described a very unlikely scenario of people with only alternate sexualities to move to one state. He thereby wants to force the natives out of their homes and force them to cooperate. He also dismisses the fact that the new nation will never be funded, and they can't make their own money because the oil is not theirs. This community will never be built on a strong foundation that is family, because no family will exist. The people, all coming from different regions and climates, will have great struggles living in their new home. And if they will all get along, that's just the question.
People punishing homosexuals and others for being just that is wrong, and ignorance should be battled. But sending all of them to a seperate country, is not the solution.
Vote con.
Debate Round No. 4
16 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by bubbatheclown 2 years ago
bubbatheclown
While we're at it, let's create a nation for clowns!
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
Do you read my comments, or do you only read the first few words and then respond?
Posted by bubbatheclown 2 years ago
bubbatheclown
This nation would be primarily for LGBT people. It'd be their nation, and their nation alone. They'd have sovereignty over their nation, and they'd be able to forge their own destiny. This is how it differs from segregation.
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
Like Africa. For black people. Such is a very offensive idea that is historically relevant. One of the main justifications of segregation was that blacks would be safe from discrimination. The suggestion that unwelcome minorities ought to be moved to "avoid persecution" is a bad faith argument that tends to be employed by those who don't want that minority around. Instead, a better idea is for those who do not wish to tolerate LGBT persons to move to a separate country, since the LGBT community has the right to live where they wish (of course, this idea has problems too for those LGBT persons born in these "pure" communities).
Posted by bubbatheclown 2 years ago
bubbatheclown
Did you even read the debate? This idea would give gay people a safe place to go to escape persecution.
Posted by Hematite12 2 years ago
Hematite12
With all due respect, this is one of the most psychotic ideas I've ever heard.

I don't even know what to say, with all honesty.
Posted by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
To repeat: "I also notice that you associate LGBTQ with pedophilia as an "alternate sexuality." First off, homosexuality is pretty much consistent across cultures. There is nothing "alternative" about it, any more than being straight is an "alternative" sexuality or being black/brown is an "alternative" ethnicity. Second of all, homosexuality has nothing to do with pedophilia, and this association is extremely offensive to millions of people."
Bubbatheclown: You touched on the issues I raised, but I don't think you answered them. Do you wish to respond further?
Posted by bubbatheclown 2 years ago
bubbatheclown
Ignoring the derogatory nature of your comment, the Middle East is full of stonings and hangings for homosexual people. Even if "homophobes" were silenced in the US, it'd still be happening elsewhere in the world.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
it would be far easier to get rid of the homophobic a-holes
Posted by bubbatheclown 2 years ago
bubbatheclown
I included both homosexuality and pedophilia in the category "Alternate Sexualities." Male and Female are two different things which are in the same category "Genders."
Anyhow, I was simply attempting to include every "alternate sexuality" out there.
However, pedophilia (the heterosexual kind) was prevalent in every ancient culture where 15 year old girls married 32 year old men. And in Sparta, pedophilia (the homosexual kind) was quite common.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by kbub 2 years ago
kbub
bubbatheclownRowanMTied
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:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con pointed out that this plan would be extraordinarily impractical, expensive, and unethical for those living in Alaska. The LGBT community and pedophiles and everyone else Pro doesn't seem to care for. This statement: "What's the matter, feeling Pedophobic? It's just an alternate lifestyle, right? They're born that way, right?"--merits a negative conduct point. Con points out that these deported citizens would have no way to trade, make a living, or acquire food. Rather than opening up America to the refugees, Pro prefers to build them a ghetto (with funds he can't prove will occur) where LGBT people will starve, live in poverty, be separated from their families, and be unable to effectively or safely start a family.