My statement is this: the main arguments against homosexuality are religious. Who is right and who is wrong? Who wins the right to force their beliefs on other people? Jews? Christians? Muslims? How about any one of the many schools of Sanatana Dharma (Hinduism)? How about Buddhism? My point is if we open up the door for the government to get involved in a religious debate, we open the possibility for a theocratic dictatorship.
I feel that with a newer generation coming into the world . This newer generation is more accepting no matter what religion they are. I do not feel that homosexuality will be accepted across the world. But I feel it will be accepted in most countries. Including the USA so I feel like the government will not even have to do anything. Because people are getting more and more accepting. My example is from 21 Jump Street when Channing Tatum Punches a gay kid in the face and everyone is angry at him. Society is becoming less and less religious.
I wish you were right. So many religious conservatives continue to whine about gays having rights. "Why do they force their lifestyle on us" "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" "gays cannot have children" "why do they choose to be gay" and other random fallacies.
religion is becoming less and less important everyday. I am religious my self. But once again this new generation is to accepting. Once all the old timers die. This country will be run by the new generation of maybe a more accepting religion
Reasons for voting decision: I believe that gay's should have equal rights, but as to who won the arguments, that's more difficult. So, there are two questions inherent in the topic: (1) is gay rights an issue of religion, and (2) if it is, can it be answered? I think, based on the construction of the topic, that the first issue is a prerequisite to the second, i.e. if gay rights isn't a matter of religion then a Con vote is in order, even if gay rights can't be settled. However, I feel that both debaters sort of doged that part of the debate, and I don't think either really persuaded me much on that issue. The first issue is therefore a tie, and, since burden of proof seems to be joint as no one specifies, I will look to issue two to see who I thought won. (If burden of proof went to Pro to show gay rights is a religious issue, Con would've won; however, no one tells me that it is Pro's sole burden to do that.) Sitara seems to just edge out Con here--if gay rights is a religious issue, there's no way to solve.
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.