The Instigator
tempus_erus
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
TheLastLightEver
Con (against)
Winning
7 Points

gay marriage and why transsexual once had the right to marry now doesnt

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
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...
TheLastLightEver
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/3/2010 Category: Education
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,481 times Debate No: 13556
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (1)

 

tempus_erus

Pro

Well i once had the right as a straight transsexual to arry a man now i do not. In my beliefs depending on school has no problem with transsexuals and gays, the rule was brought up because monks were celibate but pandaks transsexuals were coming on to them plus this was added later in the sutras after the gautama buddha. so in theory buddhism has no problem.

Their are varous groups in christen/catholic/islam/jewish tranditions that accept gay marriage and is not agaisnt god. gautma buddha saw that male monk change to female and so went and lived with feale nuns. homosexuality though is accepted because buddha teaches compassion its igorance and the influence of the monks who urged gautma buddha make a ban of pandak gays and transsexuals soly because of celibacy and not as a negative who they represent.

their are 10 million buddhist in the usa not to uch other pagans not in that figure. And then a third to half of those who are of the christan/catholic/jewish/islamic accept gay marriage until the influence of mormons, some catholics/jewish/islamic and mostly baptist and evanglicals. though their was a evangilical priest who retranslated the bible in its origenal language and found no negative forms glbt concept in the bible though he was excumenated does that ring any bells on some faous sciencetist who are now considered right.

homosexuality is not wrong look at the psyc journels that are accepted in the psyc community about gay couples and children they turn out fine, what about single parents again they turn out fine. the argument you need a other and father not same is weak. to homosexuality is not a choose nor can you cure it or should you, again look at the psyc journels. The argument that anal sex can be rough is weak, so cant hetereosexual sex.

the argument a male to female is a man again is weak look at the psyc journels. god knew in the wob and yet medical i am a women then it proves a pro for transsexuals. the idea your body is a tob respect well opps their goes cancer treament, coenical diesease treament platic surgery when god tells you to die then you die.

Their an argument i heard from the far right that cheating is the samme as gay sin. well then why do you still support politeceans who are antigay and yet cheat hypocritease i beleive. As i buddhist i will say this i knew god in his tie in one of my past lives he more knostic then anything and he had no problem with gays if you look at a historian point of view that came later with such people and others as constitne. a write as you will wouldnt that be blapshmy to god. why is is christen to teach god is like a buddhist onk and try to be like god then they turn out to be toned down versions of nazis teaching and acting without love and compassion. I can prove past lives and experiance i seen and so have others sciencetist though a fringe study have proven cases in india children knowing things that they shouldnt to an accurate degree. what does the bible prove nothing its a book unless you go to the expraince of saints but most christens argue saints are a catholic thing and arnt congruent in chritenanity. were more christens are agaisnt gays then catholics. isnt funny that the last pope god incarnate was gay friendly but the current pope who has questionally actions to jews during the holocaust and now with priest abuse cases.

i aint anti god believe or not all the jewish sages,christ,mohammed and god himself to a buddhist point view are saints called bodhisattvas. theirs a rule that protects the minority in the constitution theirs also rule thier to congress shall make no law for or agaisnt a religous estblishment and separation church and state. so the marriage law agaisnt homosexuality is unconstitional and goes agaisnt other religions were a set of beliefs by a set of people is religion ie buddhism ie science ie atheism. but the problem with civial unions is equality beleive it or not the civil rights law for blacks include alll races and groups so that means gays. its religous marriage thats is higher then court marriage and so this idea again is not equal either separate but equal. going into other countries from a religous point of view telling them to stop gay marriage and killing/curing gays and stopping trade with the us goes agaisnt our foreign as long as your citzrn of our country you reprent us including religous organizations. in the christen bible you can always find god/bible people say one thing agaisnt and then say another for so is god a hypocrit or is its people remmber the bible was inspiried by god by written by man. how can i know so uch about the bible well i raised christen.

tsroadmap.co/mental/spirit.html
christiangays.com/
www.drbecky.com/lynnmont.html

all my arguments are here
TheLastLightEver

Con

In this incoherent rambling, I have managed to pick out a few arguments, although I would like my opponent to make them a bit more clear and concise for me. There are only three rounds, so I would like to limit the topics to only three. If my opponent wishes to debate these three, I would be happy. If she wishes to change her topics, I ask that she forfeit and start a new debate with just those topics. Either way, I ask my opponent to provide citations for her sources and where she has found her facts. Without reliable sources, the facts do not hold any ground in the debate. Here is what I was able to decipher from this round:

1. You are for gay marriage. Your support for this is that there were some Buddhist monks who were cool when "transsexuals were coming on to them", there are some (unknown and un-cited) religious groups that accept gay marriage, and because gay couples that have children "turn out fine" and anyone who disagrees needs to "look at the psych journals." What is your argument here? What religious groups? What psych journals?

2. You can "prove past lives and experiance i seen and so have others sciencetist though a fringe study have proven cases in india children knowing things that they shouldnt to an accurate degree." I would like this proof and its source before I can debate that.

3. You are a transsexual and "the argument a male to female is a man again is weak look at the psych journals (again)." because "god knew in the wob and yet medical i am a women then it proves a pro for transsexuals". Again, where is the argument?

Here are some questions that you posed:
a) "why do you still support politeceans who are antigay and yet cheat hypocritease i beleive"
b) "why is is christen to teach god is like a buddhist onk and try to be like god then they turn out to be toned down versions of nazis teaching and acting without love and compassion."

If we are on the same page, please clarify and confirm your topics. For clarity purposes, I would also request that my opponent check her spelling and grammar before proceeding with the debate so I can coherently read and correctly respond to the arguments. Since my opponent has chosen Pro for this debate, the burden of proof is on her. Therefore, she must back up her claims with scientific proof on the topics of "gay marriage and why transsexual once had the right to marry now doesnt".
Debate Round No. 1
tempus_erus

Pro

tempus_erus forfeited this round.
TheLastLightEver

Con

I was actually looking forward to this debate. I hope my opponent either forgot to post her argument, or that she can collect her arguments and invite me to another similar debate.
Debate Round No. 2
tempus_erus

Pro

tempus_erus forfeited this round.
TheLastLightEver

Con

I suppose that means this is a forfeit. Well, sorry to everyone who expected a real debate here. I would still like an invite to do this again from my opponent.

Peace to everyone.
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Chrysippus 6 years ago
Chrysippus
7 points to Con, obviously. Pro decided that he didn't care to post his arguments, since they were too good for us.
Posted by Chrysippus 6 years ago
Chrysippus
"no acadimic would ever codenm a paper or debate based on grammer if the command of knowledge is present"

Bunk. If your paper is unintelligible, it will not even be printed in any scholarly journal, much less given any serious consideration. If you attempted to write your master's thesis in the same way you wrote this debate, you would never find a college willing to accept it.

"so i am going to lose to bunk of fundi retards based off grammer"

No, you are about to lose to a rather too-kind debater because you refuse to think and write clearly.

"i pointed out everything of hypocritize and why the marriage act is illegal you grip spelling because your bunch cowards who know i am right."

How can we know if you are right or not if we cannot even understand what you are trying to say? You "pointed out" a lot of meaningless babble; all we did was ASK YOU TO WRITE CLEARLY.

"like i said i dont care online how my grammer is if i write a paper i could outflank an english major."

ROTFL!

"my spelling and grammer is actually neurological because of my thought pattern i have BPD so that so be taken into consideration. i also have other real learning disablities. how did i get through college like any other with disablities brains and well i would've sued their asses for discrimantion"

So, you write indicipherable garbage and then make a bunch of excuses. Cool. Pardon me if I don't care.

When this debate ends, I'll be voting. I don't know for who, though, because if by some miracle you grow a backbone in the meantime and stop making excuses for your mediocrity, you might just make convincing arguments for your position. We'll see.

I will vote for whoever made the best arguments, supported their logic with facts, and refuted their opponent best; NOT for whomever I happen to believe is right. On those grounds, you still have an opportunity to win my vote.
Posted by bluesteel 6 years ago
bluesteel
What does BPD stand for?

It could be a lot of things, fyi. Bipolar disorder. Borderline personality disorder, Bronchopulmonary Dysplasia.

Just legitimately curious - what part of your thought pattern makes it so hard to spell?
Posted by tempus_erus 6 years ago
tempus_erus
this ought be fun no brains and no education to someone can spell, but if you kill it with grammer note i was trained to like an editor i tore my adivosor a new one on a paper he published when i was in school note i dropped out because i have health problems. i could've went for a masters degree, my spelling and grammer is actually neurological because of my thought pattern i have BPD so that so be taken into consideration. i also have other real learning disablities. how did i get through college like any other with disablities brains and well i would've sued their asses for discrimantion.
Posted by bluesteel 6 years ago
bluesteel
"The voting period will last 3 days"

Change to "last indefinitely" and I'll accept.

Are you seriously in college?
Posted by 20000miles 6 years ago
20000miles
"so i lose by grammer. no acadimic would ever codenm a paper or debate based on grammer..."

What about bad spilling?
Posted by tempus_erus 6 years ago
tempus_erus
so i lose by grammer. no acadimic would ever codenm a paper or debate based on grammer if the command of knowledge is present oh by the way i did spell check. so i am going to lose to bunk of fundi retards based off grammer i guess thats what this nations coming to. i pointed out everything of hypocritize and why the marriage act is illegal you grip spelling because your bunch cowards who know i am right. like i said i dont care online how my grammer is if i write a paper i could outflank an english major. in any debate its abot knoledge and command i admit grammer plays a role only to a point but this website needs to be more bluent about grammer then.
Posted by TheLastLightEver 6 years ago
TheLastLightEver
Although crappy internet browsers and sticky keys do exist, they do not prevent reviewing your spelling and grammar. Even still, there is a link that checks your spelling for you. Also, if you want to be taken seriously in life and on debate.org, you should present yourself as a serious person. This means presenting your debates with good spelling and grammar. That has absolutely nothing to do with your "fight" against anti-gay people. There is no fight, only ignorance and stubbornness. That is what it is to debate, to formally use facts to support your beliefs against an opposing argument.
Posted by Chrysippus 6 years ago
Chrysippus
"remmber also i have a learning disablity and neorulogical probles"

Ah, that does explain some things.

"which explains my gramer probles yet my genius like ablities with facts."

Yep, you managed to get them all wrong. Genius.

"i dont have to explain myself to a likes of any of you grow a pair and grow up."

Oh, we are SO sorry for offending you, OH Great Repository of all Knowledge!

"this is a differance between an acadiic knowledge and a person who has no acadimic training and who just reads things for themselves they can read and point out verses but have no understanding of the verse or the understanding of the people of that time. i do."

You... don't.

Your extreme ignorance and pointlessness is obvious to everyone else. Next time, rant about something you know.

I was tempted to take this just for the easy win, but then I realized it meant three rounds of reading that bilge. Bleagh.
Posted by Ore_Ele 6 years ago
Ore_Ele
Grammar is one of the grading criteria on this. Also, I think you should try to only debate one thing at a time. Don't try debating everything in a single debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Chrysippus 6 years ago
Chrysippus
tempus_erusTheLastLightEverTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07