The Instigator
acvavra
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ron-Paul
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

gay marriage

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 4 votes the winner is...
Ron-Paul
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/6/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,360 times Debate No: 24569
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (4)

 

acvavra

Pro

Gay marriage should be illegal because a homosexual is considered a sodomite by definition and because marriage is a Christian institution. It should be illegal in any country. Round 1 is acceptance. Rounds 2-4 are getting deeper into the argument along with rebuttals and round 5 is the conclusion along with any last minute rebuttals
Ron-Paul

Con

I accept. As a note, I am pro gay marriage, my opponent will be arguing for its prohibition. He seems to have switched the sides. Again, I will be arguing that gay marriage should be legal, and will focus on the US.
Debate Round No. 1
acvavra

Pro

Marriage is religious in origin. A sodomite(sounds better than gay) may claim to be religious but it amounts to what the Bible says, and God created a man and a woman to be married, Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. The term sodomite comes from a story in the Bible(Genesis19) where God kills "gay people" because they are homosexuals and wanted to rape angels. The United States used to have laws that made homosexuality illegal because sodomy was considered illegal. Consider this, if sodomites are allowed to be married, they will have to adopt children since they cant produce them. Wouldn't the tendency to sodomize the children go up if gay marriage was legalized? You say, "I know a nice, gay couple that wouldn't think of such a thing." EXCEPTIONS DONT OVERTHROW THE RULE. Hundreds of children would get sodomized if gay marriage is legalized. Further, why can't sodomites protest and advocate civil unions? Why does it have to be "marriage."
Ron-Paul

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for presenting his arguments. Again, I will mainly be focusing on the US in this debate, and will try to determine gay marriage's constitutionality.

I. Presenting My Arguments

I.i. Gay Marriage Is Beneficial to the Economy

Gay marriage increases spending and tax revenue: "What gets a boost? In addition to reception site, jewelers, vacation destinations, photographers, restaurants, apparel and accessories sellers, florists, musicians, limo services, stationery stores, and clergy, think about these economic impacts:
tax revenue on all of the above
marriage licence fees
According to the Williams Institute, state and local revenues from taxes and licenses alone would equal $63 million in California during the first three years. And that doesn't begin to touch the government savings of caring for children who could be legally adopted by gay couples."[1]

I.ii. Gay Marriage Prohibition is Unconstitutional

"The banning of same-sex marriage is a violation of civil liberties, because it mirrors that of the civil rights movement in the 60's, religion should not determine law, and it is unconstitutional."[2] "One needs to look no further than the 14th Amendment to determine that DOMA violates the U.S. Constitution. The Equal Protection Clause of this amendment prohibits the enforcement of any law that denies citizens of the U.S. any rights or immunities that all U.S. citizens are entitled to. By not allowing certain individuals to marry, DOMA denies them the hundreds of federal rights and responsibilities that are included with the status of legal marriage, including joint tax filing, inheritance of property, making spousal medical decisions and joint adoption."[3] DOMA is unconstitutional because it denies rights.

II. Attacking My Opponent's Arguments

II.i. The Bible

Jamie Raskin basically summed it up with this quote "Senator, when you took your oath of office, you placed your hand on the Bible and swear to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the bible." Just because something is in the Bible does not mean it should be illegal. If that were the case, tattoos would be prohibited (Leviticus 19:28), pork would be prohibited (Leviticus 11:7-8), and work on the Seventh Day (Christian Sunday, Jewish Saturday) would be prohibited (Exodus 20:8-10). See how silly all this sounds?

"Traditional Church teaching falsely misuses the Bible to judge the homosexual lifestyle. True Biblical theology begins not with Church tradition and dogma but with the biblical texts themselves. Biblical theology seeks to understand how the biblical authors expressed themselves in the Koine Greek of the time (not expanded by later modern greek meanings), in terms of their culture. Only with this understanding is it legitimate to define biblical sexual ethics of the NT and find implications for today."[5] So we've established that the true doctorine of the church is not dogma and tradition, but rather a study of the Bible.

As for Genesis 19: "There are few biblical verses that address homosexuality at all, and most of those are not directed at homosexuality per se. Opponents of same-sex marriage routinely cite seven verses in the Christian Bible as condemning homosexuality and calling it a sin. But when taken in context, these lessons speak not against homosexuality itself, but rather against rape, child molestation, bestiality, and other practices that hurt others and compromise a person's relationship with God.So as shown, just because something is forbidden in the Bible does not mean that it should be prohibited through law. The Bible is not the supreme authority on law [State Law, not Church Law] In addition to this, the Bible never mentions homosexuality, and Genesis 19 is a testament to this."[6] So as shown, Genesis 19 does not condemn homosexuality.

II.ii Does Homosexuality Encourage Homosexuality?

"Research has shown that in contrast to common beliefs, children of lesbian, gay, or transgender parents:

Are not more likely to be gay than children with heterosexual parents.
Are not more likely to be sexually abused.
Do not show differences in whether they think of themselves as male or female (gender identity).
Do not show differences in their male and female behaviors (gender role behavior)."[7]
So, this common belief that gay parents tend to breed and encourage gay children is misguided and without scientific evidence.

Sources:

[1]:http://www.businesspundit.com...
[2]:http://www.divinecaroline.com...
[3]:http://www.dailygamecock.com...
[4]:http://www.bible.com...; For bible verses
[5]:http://www.lionking.org...
[6]:http://notaboutreligion.com...
[7]:http://www.aacap.org...
Debate Round No. 2
acvavra

Pro

My opponent is overlooking many things in his arguments. First, Gay marriage can also HURT the economy. Many people who find gay people to be sick and/or are offended by looking at them, will refuse to shop at stores where they are welcome at and go somewhere else. Second, AIDS is very commom in homosexuals(prefer sodomite), meaning the medical insurance will skyrocket if AIDS becomes even more common. You know, AIDS use to be known as GRID(Gay Related Immunity Deficiency) before liberals got offended. AIDS will increase dramatically if Gay Marriage were legalized.

Second, the unconstitutional argument depends on who interprets the Constitutional. Our Founding Fathers would never have allowed Gay Marriage because they believed the Bible. Also, suppose hard core Conservatives determined the law instead of Leftist liberals. DOMA would never have been overturned and homosexuality would be against the law still. Whoever is in charge determines if something is constitutional or not. When the Equal Protection Clause was passed, I doubt anyone was thinking of sodomites since it was STILL against the law.

Now my opponent claims, "the Bible never mentions homosexuality." It doesn't? Then what do you make of Leviticus 18:22, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind" and Leviticus 20:13, "If a man lie with mankind as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination." Furthermore, my opponent says you can't use the Bible to "uphold the law." Well, then live in a country that practices that and see how you like it. Go ahead and live in communist China or North Korea and see how great it is there without using the Bible. Try to live in the Middle East where you can get your hand cut off for stealing. Go ahead and live in Africa where disease and plague and famine are so rampant, women and children have to stay in refugee camps. Go ahead and live in Mexico where you cant drink the water. Try Europe, where the French pay huge taxes for free college for students. Try Britain, and see how great it is compared to America or any other European country for that matter. The reason America is such a great country is because the Bible guided our country in its beginning. America is the superpower of the world. How did it get there so fast, in about 200 years? How did a bunch of farmers defeat the British army? It couldn't have been just technology. There wasn't any technology back in 1776.

Furthermore, I would like to ask my opponent a question. Why is it, that there aren't any "gay" animals. Surely, if homosexuality is genetic, it would be seen in animals. How come I have never seen a male rooster go after another male rooster sexually? How come a male horse never gets an erection looking at another male horse? Also, how come when a human baby is born, the doctor doesn't say, "Congratulations, Mr and Mrs. So-and-So, you have an it." Or how come a doctor can't tell parents that your child was born "gay." Surely a genetic defect would be quite obvious to a medical doctor. Autism or any other genetic defect is!
No, my friend, homosexuality is a lifestyle, a choice, no one is born that way. And if people choose to give themselves AIDS, then marriage should be illegal between the two!
Ron-Paul

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for presenting his rebuttals.

I. First Paragraph

Gay marriage indeed helps the economy. "Forbes magazine says an immediate windfall of about $17 billion could be had if gay marriage were made legal nationally. The magazine conducted the analysis several years ago and determined that "one thing is abundantly clear: Legalizing same-sex marriages would mean a windfall for the wedding industry." Weddings are a $70 billion-a-year business. In another, long-term analysis, the Christian Science Monitor notes a Congressional Budget Office study, which found that if gay marriage were allowed throughout the United States, it would improve the federal budget's bottom line."[1] My opponent's conclusion here is false because gay acceptance is rapidly rising. "Overall, 53 percent of Americans say gay marriage should be legal, steady the past year but up from 36 percent in just 2006. Thirty-nine percent strongly support it, while 32 percent are strongly opposed the first time strong sentiment has tilted positive. Six years ago, by contrast, strong views on the issue were negative by a broad 27-point margin."[2] This conclusion is rapidly falling apart. In addition, just by using simple logic, why would people not shop at gay-owned stores? And how would they know? Again in addition, gay marriage's legalization will not increase this "discrimination" because there will still be the same number of gays. In fact, it will decrease. By the way, your video comes from the Georgia State GOP Convention, so it must be disregarded.

"New research, which looks at variations between US states in tolerance towards homosexuality and HIV rates, has found that an increase in tolerance significantly reduces the rate of HIV.*** Importantly, given the current debate, they also find that laws that ban marriage between individuals of the same sex increase HIV rate by between 3 and 5 per hundred thousand. If we extended this analysis to California, the marriage ban in that state could have contributed to between 1,092 and 1,820 cases of HIV. This result is not as counter-intuitive as you might think. Increased tolerance reduces risky sexual behavior on both the intensive and extensive margin."[3] This is almost like a catch-22 for your part. You are arguing that gays have higher rates of AIDS, when in fact it is gay marriage's prohibition that is causing the problem in the first place. Gay marriage's legalization would decrease the gay AIDS rate.

Lastly, your final comment is odd. Heterosexual people get AIDS too you know? And "GRID" is in fact caused by gay marriage's prohibition.

So as shown, gay marriage does indeed help the economy and the federal budget, far outweighing any of the consequences that "could" surface. In addition, gay marriage's legalization will decrease the gay AIDS rate.

II. Second Paragraph

"DOMA violates constitutional protections that forbid the Government from discriminating by creating disfavored, second-class citizens"and disfavored, second-class marriages. Such unconstitutional election-year bills appeal to anti-gay disapproval, dislike, or discomfort the very animus rejected by the Supreme Court as a basis for government discrimination. DOMA inserts the federal government for the first time in history into the definition of marriage, violating the Tenth Amendment, which reserves powers for the states. DOMA violates the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit clause, which requires that official acts and proceedings of each state be recognized by sister states. Congress does not have the constitutional power to decide when, or which, state acts get interstate respect or when people are stripped of those rights as they travel through the country."[4]

"Keeping gay marriage illegal also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. According to the American Civil Liberties Union in 1996, (3) The law [against same-sex marriage] discriminates on the basis of sex because it makes one's ability to marry depend on one's gender. The ACLU goes on to say, Classifications which discriminate on the basis of gender must be substantially related to some important government purpose tradition by itself is not an important government purpose. If it were, sex discrimination would be quite permissible; discrimination against women has a pedigree in tradition at least as long and time honored as that of discrimination against same-sex couples in marriage. Nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution is preservation of tradition cited as a power or intention of our government. There is no constitutional basis for denying gay couples marriage, and every constitutional reason why our government should actively pursue legalizing gay marriage in order to give gay men and lesbians their rights as equal citizens of the United States and to ensure their inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness that every American is guaranteed. Our government's purpose is to defend the rights of the people, and in this instance our government has undoubtedly failed in its duties."[5]

The Constitution cannot be changed. There is nothing in the Constitution that defines this "marital tradition". These amendments simply defined it more.

III. Third Paragraph

"Life was harsh in early Old Testament times. The wanderings and struggle for survival of the Israelites did not permit prisons or rehabilitation. Anyone who deviated seriously from the norm was either stoned to death or exiled. The Old Testament prescribed the death penalty for the crimes of murder, attacking or cursing a parent, kidnapping, failure to confine a dangerous animal resulting in death, witchcraft and sorcery, sex with an animal, doing work on the Sabbath, incest, adultery, homosexual acts, prostitution by a priest's daughter, blasphemy, false prophecy, perjury in capital cases and false claim of a woman's virginity at the time of marriage.

It must be emphasized that, according to the New Testament, we are no longer under the harsh Old Testament Law (John 1:16-17, Romans 8:1-3, 1 Corinthians 9:20-21). The concern with punishment is now secondary to Jesus' message of repentance and redemption. Both reward and punishment are seen as properly taking place in eternity, rather than in this life. In Old Testament times, homosexual activity was strongly associated with idolatrous cult prostitution as in 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12. (There was also cult prostitution by females.) In fact, the word "abomination," used in both mentions of homosexual acts in Leviticus, is a translation of the Hebrew word tow' ebah which, according to Strong's Greek/Hebrew Dictionary, means something morally disgusting, but it also has a strong implication of idolatry. Thus, many Bible scholars believe the condemnations in Leviticus are more a condemnation of the idolatry than of the homosexual acts themselves."[6]

Its funny because the French and Italians are more ardent believers in the Bible yet...

IV. Fourth Paragraph

"Homosexual behaviour has been observed in 1,500 animal species.

"We're talking about everything from mammals to crabs and worms. The actual number is of course much higher. Among some animals homosexual behaviour is rare, some having sex with the same gender only a part of their life, while other animals, such as the dwarf chimpanzee, homosexuality is practiced throughout their lives."[7]

"While sexual behavior may be chosen, the preponderance of researchers say attraction is dicated by biology, with no demonstrated contribution from social factors such as parenting or other factors after birth."[8]

I would refute more, but I am out of room.
Debate Round No. 3
acvavra

Pro

Economic Rebuttal

I'm not sure why my video is to be disregarded. You said you would focus on the United States, and Georgia is in the United States. Second, considering many pastors do not perform weddings for sodomites(gay people), how do you know the money from weddings will increase. Further, since homosexuals are still going to need a lot of money to pay for their wedding, how do you know they just won't do as cheap a wedding as possible? And yes, discrimination will increase for sodomites will just parade their sin to the public by kissing each other or groping each other. Many people I talk to that don't mind gay marriage do get disgusted watching them kiss each other in public. They have hid themselves for so long, just watch the discrimination rise while they are out in the public parading it.

Gay marriage AIDS Rebuttal

Now you state that the ban on gay marriage is increasing AIDS, and gay marriage will decrease it, but how do you know they won't cheat on each other? That would increase AIDS. If they cheat on each other now and increase HIV, gay marriage won't improve things at all. They will still cheat on each other. Yes, heterosexual people get AIDS too, but its far more prevalent among sodomites.

You say that we are to give sodomites the pursuit of happiness, yet sodomites are never happy. "Gay" is a misnomer, because sodomites are never gay, they are always depressed, and marriage won't change that when affairs start happening. Second, there is a vast difference between women discrimination and gay marriage, the two are unrelated. Also, if conservative Christians ran the government there would be no gay marriage and vice versa when sodoites run it. So again, the Constitution is interpreted by the biases of the current authorities.

Bible Argument
My opponent is right by saying we are no longer under the Old Testament Law but under the New Testament. However, the New Testament condemns homosexuality as well.
Romans 1:27 says, "And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, BURNED IN THEIR LUST ONE TOWARD ANOTHER; MEN WITH MEN WORKING THAT WHICH IS UNSEEMLY, and receiving in themselves(AIDS/HIV) that recompense of their error which was meet(worthy). Verse 32 says, "Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things ARE WORTHY OF DEATH."
May I also mention that any country that didn't folow the Bible(Russia, Greece, Rome, Middle East, China, North Korea, Africa, etc.) has never been as superior as America is. Italians were a bunch of Roman Catholics that were never as powerful as the Protestant United States of the past. Further, France is also Roman Catholic and let the Muslims run their lives. Those aren't Bible Believers.

There aren't any homosexual animals either.In 1996, homosexual scientist Simon LeVay admitted that the evidence pointed to isolated acts, not to homosexuality:

Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.[11]
Despite the "homosexual" appearances of some animal behavior, this behavior does not stem from a "homosexual" instinct that is part of animal nature. Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain, explains:

Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.

Born That WAY

Further, my opponent admits "sexual behavior can be chosen" among humans. Again, if homosexuality is biological, where is the prove of it at birth? All genetic defects or mutations can be detected at birth. Surely the doctor would know the sexual orientation of the baby. Here's a science lesson: All males have an XY sex chromosome. All females have an XX sex chromosome. Could someone have a YY or XYYX OR YXX or any other combination? Surely that would indicate homosexuality? No, they can't actually. Any biology teacher can tell you any other combination will result in the baby's death or complete genetic defect where they wouldn't act normal.

Further the proof homosexuality is a lifestyle is that some homosexuals BECOME HETEROSEXUALS. Additionally God doesn't think hat their born that way. Consider 1 Corinthians 6:9,11 which says, " Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor, NOR ABUSERS OF THEMSELVES WITH MANKIND shall inherit the kingdom of God. AND SUCH WERE SOME OF YOU." But not anymore.

Again, sodomy is considered illegal to do to a child. Why wouldn't it be illegal for homosexuals? Further, marriage is religious in origin, and homosexuals VIOLATE RELIGION. They should be content with civil unions.
Ron-Paul

Con

I would like to again thank my opponent for presenting his arguments.

I. Economic Rebuttal

Yes. The video is from Georgia, but the Georgia GOP convention. That is not a bi-partisan source.

You do realize that marriages don't have to be performed with a preacher, right? One can have a wedding with a state marriage official and the marriage will be recognized by the state and be valid. In addition, homosexuals are going to pay the same, if not more for a wedding. And, if gay marriage were prohibited, then, again, like I said earlier, discrimination would increase because it was not accepted. You notice that as more states have legalized gay marriage, the trend toward a disagreement with the morality of gay marriage has decreased on a nationwide and state level. Gay acts of love are still found, and will still be around even with gay marriage prohibition.

II. Gay Marriage AIDS Rebuttal

And gays don't cheat anymore without marriage? Legalization will not increase adultery among homosexuals. And why does adultery increase the number of people with AIDS in the first place? And still, if gay marriage were legalized, that would drop the gay AIDS rate down to about the heterosexual level.

And why aren't gays happy? Because they aren't allowed to get married! Second, I don't see what that has to do with this topic. Also, it dosen't matter who is interpreting the constitution, liberal or conservative, the constitution should always be interpreted correctly, and DOMA is clearly unconstitutional based on the many articles and amendments revelant at hand. You have basically dropped the entire constitutionality argument.

III. Bible Argument

The Romans argument I have already defeated on the basis of the New Testament. And still, as I pointed out long ago, it dosen't matter what the Bible says because what it does say should not be interpreted into law. Just because something is in the Bible does not mean it should be made law.

Also, America has grown more secular. Italy and France are more Christian than the US is, and yet they are spiraling out of control. And the Scandinavian countries are some of the best off, happiest countries in the world, and yet, they are secular. Heck, Turkey is Muslim and they are very good off.

"The percent of homosexual behaviour ranges in species from 90% to under 1%. Sometimes almost entire collections are found to be gay, entire troops of Bonobo apes and up to 94% of some populations of Giraffes. All this in nature, not in zoos or in experiments. Of all the species that have been observed to produce gay members, the ratio of gay sexual encounters can be calculated. "Combining these [...] yields a figure of just over 20%: roughly one-fifth of all interactions, on average, are homosexual in mammal and bird species that have [some] form of [sexual same-sex behaviour]"3.

Inside zoos, the same story repeats itself. The Metro newspaper, 2005 Feb 14 (Mon), reported on a case hitting the papers that month. "Bosses at Bremerhaven Zoo in Germany discovered most of its male penguins were in same-sex relationships and not producing offspring, despite there being adequate females present.". But many people discount statistics gathered in zoos because they say that the unnatural circumstances cause animals to be gay, which is what sociologists call "situational homosexuality" in Human beings, such as occurs in prisons, single sex boarding schools, etc. This is why Bagemihl stresses the importance that all his research comes from animals in natural habitats.

To summarize, I refer to the newly opened exhibition "Against Nature?" at the University of Oslo:

"The National History Museum at the University of Oslo has just opened an exhibition of gay animals. Homosexuality has been recorded in some 1500 species so far, and been well documented in about a third of these cases; it has been known since the time of Aristotle, who thought he witnessed two male hyenas having sex with one another. Aside from illustrating homosexuality among an extraordinary variety of creatures, the exhibition shows how sexual stimulation can vary when, at first blush, the mechanical details of how this might work are not obvious to people attempting to draw analogies from their own anatomy. Male Amazonian river dolphins, for example, penetrate the blowholes of other males; female bottlenose dolphins use their snouts as dildos on other females.

Why this behaviour might be favoured by natural selection, though, is a difficult question to answer. In an attempt to do so, the exhibition picks on gay flamingos. Two males raising a chick after one of them had a one-night stand (of sorts) with a female are able to hold a larger territory than male-female partnerships. This suggests a chick with two dads could get more food and therefore have a better chance of survival. [...] One [theory] is that homosexuals assist in the upbringing of their relatives so much that they pass on more of their genes this way than by having children themselves."[1]

"Dr Qazi Rahman, study co-author and a leading scientist on human sexual orientation, explains: "This study puts cold water on any concerns that we are looking for a single 'gay gene' or a single environmental variable which could be used to 'select out' homosexuality - the factors which influence sexual orientation are complex. And we are not simply talking about homosexuality here - heterosexual behaviour is also influenced by a mixture of genetic and environmental factors."

Sources:

[1]:http://www.humantruth.info...
[2]:http://esciencenews.com...
Debate Round No. 4
acvavra

Pro

I would like to thank my opponent for presenting his arguments. I will present my last minute rebuttals and then conclude.

Concerning economics, how do we know homosexuals, once they get a state recognized marriage, won't protest for a church recognized marriage? They won't stop until they get everything they want, and complete tolerance from everyone, and quite frankly, Bible believers wont stand for that.

Concerning AIDS, adultery will occur once gay marriage is legalized. And this will be bad, because then these sodomites will start killing each other and possibly others in the process, for stepping out on each other. Infidelity among NON-MARRIED couples doesn't create the need for revenge that it does among MARRIED couples. Thus, murder or other crimes spun out of revenge will increase. Does that sound fun, Ron Paul? Further, there is no prove that AIDS will drop will the legalization of marriage. If they cheat on each other now, they will cheat on each other when married.

Will marriage really make them happier? How about when they start cheating on each other. AIDS is associated with sodomites(remember GRID) AND SO DISEASE IS RAMPANT AMONG THOSE SODOMITES.
Who interprets the Constitution then Ron Paul. It is decided by the biases of the authorities in charge. Do you know who our Founding Fathers were, Ron Paul? They were white, STRAIGHT, Protestant, MALES. There wasn't a Black,(racism not intended), QUEER, woman (sexism not intended), or Catholic among them. Those men hated homosexuality, it was AGAINST THE LAW. They would have found DOMA CONSTITUTIONAL. So we could go back and forth on the Constitutional argument all day.

The Book of Romans is PART OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. It says homosexuals are worthy of DEATH(Romans 1:32). Again, I would like to point out how well America did when the BIBLE WAS INTERPRETED INTO LAW. Remember, America's greatness(1800-1950) came when the Bible was used as the law. Yes, America has grown secular, and so our greatness is leaving as our dollar collapses. Italy and France are not Christian, they are Roman Catholic who killed millions of CHRISTIANS the curse of that religion is affecting their country. Second, there are more freedoms in America, and better education, than in Scandinavia and Turkey, my friend.

Need I remind my opponent concerning animals, "For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex." So why do animals appear to act homsexual? Because they want to appear dominant. Remember, "Such behavior(dominance) cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction."
-Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, Spain

Further, my opponent never addressed my arguments concerning humans being born NOT GAY. I will assume that information from the previous round cannot be refuted without denying simple biology among sex chromosomes.

FOOD FOR THOUGHT:

Dr. Tryce Hansen has captured in summary form the problems with same-sex marriage, and why it's bad for kids. Any society that truly cares about children will oppose the legalization of homosexual unions for that reason alone.

Sociologists have demonstrated over and over again that the optimal nurturing environment for young children is in a home where they are raised in a two-parent family headed by a man and a woman who are married to each other. All good public policy will facilitate this ideal and discourage the recognition of marriage counterfeits.

Fundamental to this is the conviction is that there are just two genders �€" male and female �€" and not five, as homosexual activists want us to believe.

Further, men and women are fundamentally different from each other, in every cell of their bodies, meaning that a father has a unique contribution to make to the lives of his children as does a mother. As Hansen points out, males tend to "embrace reason over emotion, rules over relationship, risk-taking over caution, and standards over compassion, while (females) generally embrace the reverse."

Opposite sex parenting gives children examples of both masculinity and femininity in action, and the complementary interaction of these qualities enables them to grow up with a healthy and balanced view of life and relationships.

Rules without relationship produce something rigid and clinical, while relationship without rules produces something chaotic and disordered. Children learn how to blend these qualities by growing up in a two-parent home, where each parent contributes something essential for a child's emotional and social growth.

Parents are not interchangeable parts which can be gender-shuffled without creating a deficit in the development of children.

As Hansen puts it, "Two women can both be good mothers, but neither can be a good father."

Children need the complementary balance of the kind of love both a mother and a father provide, the nurture and compassion of a mother combined with a father's love which calls a child to achievement in order to fulfill his God-given potential. Plus, children learn how to relate to both sexes later in life by relating to both a mom and a dad and observing the way in which they relate to each other.

Further, for a boy to become a man, he must at some point detach from his mother and identify with his father, who shows him what mature masculinity looks like and teaches him how to channel and control his aggressiveness and his sexual impulses. A father's strength and presence command a kind of respect a boy needs to learn self-restraint. It's no secret that boys without fathers are much more likely to become delinquent and wind up afoul of the law.

Girls need a father to protect them and to affirm their femininity. Girls without fathers tend toward promiscuity to satisfy their inborn hunger for male validation.

As Hansen says, fathers "restrain sons from acting out antisocially, and daughters from acting out sexually."

Additionally, same-sex marriage will only increase sexual confusion in children and encourage dangerous sexual experimentation among the nation's youth. Children growing up in homosexual households have been shown to be more likely to experiment sexually, and as same-sex unions (as well as cohabitation) become the norm, this will only become more pronounced, producing more heartache, more children born out of wedlock, and more sexually transmitted diseases.

Finally, Hansen points out that once we transgress the one-man, one-woman threshold as the definition of marriage, there is no logical place to stop. It is inevitable that restricting polygamy will soon be labeled a form of discrimination, along with attempts to restrain any other form of coupling. In fact, the homosexual activist who led the charge to declassify homosexuality as a mental disorder in 1973 is now openly advocating the legitimacy of bestiality (as long, of course, as the animal "consents").

It's almost impossible to overestimate the kind of sexual confusion that young boys and girls will experience who grow up in these non-normative environments, a kind of confusion they will carry with them into the intimate relationships they will pursue as adults, a confusion which will then be passed on to their children. Generations will be damaged by the demolition of standards established by the Creator on the second page of the Scripture: "For this reason, a man will leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. (Gen. 2:24)."

Hansen concludes: "The accumulated wisdom of over 2,000 years has concluded that the ideal marital and parental configuration is composed of one man and one woman. Arrogantly disregarding such time-tested wisdom, and using children as guinea pigs in a radical experiment, is risky at best, and cataclysmic at worst.

http://www.renewamerica.com...
Ron-Paul

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for this great debate. I will also conclude.

Regarding economics, gays really aren't going to want a church-recognized wedding because only a state-recognized marriage counts. Marriages are no longer recorded by the church, but by the government. "Church-recognized" no longer exists in the modern age.�

And still, "Same-sex weddings could create hundreds of new jobs and pump hundreds of millions of dollars into California's economy, according to a new study released Monday.�

Gay couples are projected to spend $684 million on flowers, cakes, hotels, photographers and other wedding services over the next three years - so long as voters don't put a halt to the same-sex marriage spree, according to a study by the Williams Institute at University of California, Los Angeles School of Law.

During the three-year period, the researchers project that about half of the state's more than 100,000 same-sex couples will get married and another 68,000 out-of-state couples will travel to California to exchange vows. The nuptial rush is expected to create some 2,200 jobs.

The study estimates that over the next three years, gay weddings will generate $64 million in additional tax revenue for the state, and another $9 million in marriage-license fees for counties.

'This is clearly a win-win situation'"[1]

Regarding the AIDS rate, first the logic. Why would adultery increase AIDS? Safe sex practices are still going to be used likewise. Second, I've already explained the issue of internalized homophobia (whereever it was that I said it). You are basically trying to make the generalization that all homosexuals somehow engage in domestic violence by stating that the federal government would be promoting domestic violence by promoting gay marriage. Do all homosexual couples engage in domestic violence? Further, my opponent doesn't show anything about how promoting gay marriage will have an effect on the domestic violence therein. If internalized homophobia is the problem, then the clear solution is to reduce it (one step being getting rid of legislations that discriminate against them).

Now, the proof, "China, otherwise, has only a 0.05 percent population that is infected with AIDS.
Professor Zhang Beichuan from the Qingdao University said, "The lack of legal recognition for same-sex marriage is partially responsible for members of the gay community having multiple sexual partners, which increases the risk of HIV infection."
He stated, 'To legalize same-sex marriage could help stabilize and sustain gay relationships, thereby lowering the risk of contracting HIV/AIDS. Despite the call to legalize same-sex marriages, more than 80 percent of homosexuals in China are already in heterosexual marriages.'"[2] We have an AIDS rate over 200 times higher. China mostly legalizes same sex marriage. Most of America does not. America's AIDS rate is higher. Coincidence?

I will say this again because of its quality, 'In the Emory University study provided, the study confirms that denial of gay marriage is a form of intolerance, and with the passage of legislation denying same-sex marriage, AIDS rates among homosexuals will increase by 4 per 100,000 cases, while legalizing will reduce by 1 per 100,000 cases.': [3]

And, "Importantly, given the current debate, they also find that laws that ban marriage between individuals of the same sex increase HIV rate by between 3 and 5 per hundred thousand. If we extended this analysis to California, the marriage ban in that state could have contributed to between 1,092 and 1,820 cases of HIV."[4]

So gay marriage prohibiton is the cause of the high gay AIDS rate in the first place. I have the proof.

Finally, marriage will make them happier because they will finally get what they wanted for 50 years and that they are finally equal.

Regarding the Constitution, again, "DOMA violates constitutional protections that forbid the Government from discriminating by creating disfavored, second-class citizens and disfavored, second-class marriages. Such unconstitutional election-year bills appeal to anti-gay disapproval, dislike, or discomfort the very animus rejected by the Supreme Court as a basis for government discrimination. DOMA violates the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit clause, which requires that official acts and proceedings of each state be recognized by sister states. Congress does not have the constitutional power to decide when, or which, state acts get interstate respect or when people are stripped of those rights as they travel through the country."[5]

There are several places in the constitution that makes DOMA unconstitutional. No matter who interprets it, it is unconstitutional. The founding fathers, however much they would have disagreed with it, would find DOMA unconstitutional. And now, we have more tolerant politicians. Even if the founders, wouldn't, today's will. The constitution has not changed. Where in the constitution is DOMA constitutional?

Regarding the Bible, "The passage in question is Romans 1:26-27. Earlier in this chapter, the author is talking about idolatry, the worship of false gods. Then, beginning in verse 24, he talks about the results of idolatry. Verses 24 and 25 identify the results of idolatry as lust, impurity, and the degrading of one's body. Then, verses 26 and 27 spell out in more detail the nature of this lust, impurity, and bodily degradation as follows (New Revised Standard Version):

For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error.�

Following verses 26 and 27, the remainder of the chapter lists some of the other results of idolatry, and the list is rather similar to the catalogues in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:8-11. In other words, homosexuality is but one among other types of unacceptable behaviors. What must be emphasized, then, is that the passage, taken as a whole, is not about homosexuality. It is about idolatry. The only reason it mentions homosexuality at all is because the author assumes that it is a result of willful idolatry. Knowing full well that there is one true God, people nevertheless freely choose to worship false gods. As punishment for this idolatry, God gives them up� to homosexual activity. Thus, in a sense, homosexuality is not so much a sin as it is a punishment for sin."[6]

And again, state law should not be based on the Bible, but on the Constitution, which does not give law to Biblical law. We did not swear to uphold the Bible, but the Constitution.�

Regarding homosexuality in animals, "O. deletron isn't alone in its same-sex sexual behavior. In a review article published in 2009, biologists Nathan Bailey and Marlene Zuk at the University of California, Riverside, noted that many thousands of instances of same-sex courtship, pair bonding and copulation have been observed in a wide range of species, including mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, insects, mollusks and nematodes.
Some animals, when given a choice, show a preference for the same sex, and researchers have even ascribed a same-sex sexual orientation to members of certain species."[7]

"Homosexual behaviour has been observed in 1,500 animal species."[8]

It dosen't really matter if there is a question of their birth because there are few environmental changes in animals. Most are born gay.�

Regarding gay parenting,�

Again, this is very reliable, so I will repeat this again, "Research has shown that in contrast to common beliefs, children of lesbian, gay, or transgender parents:
Are not more likely to be gay than children with heterosexual parents.
Are not more likely to be sexually abused.
Do not show differences in whether they think of themselves as male or female (gender identity).
Do not show differences in their male and female behaviors (gender role behavior)."[9]

"'Studies have found children do not require both a male and female parent,' testified Michael Lamb, who heads Cambridge's Department of Social and Developmental Psychology.�Lamb also said that studies show "no significant increase" in the proportion of children who become gay and lesbian when they are raised by same-sex couples rather than heterosexuals.

Children of same-sex couples are more vulnerable than their counterparts to be teased about their parents, but not more likely to be teased overall, he said. Lamb also said that children of gays and lesbians have fewer sexual stereotypes than children of heterosexuals."[10]

I would again like to thank my opponent for this great debate.�

Sources:

[1]:http://www.cbsnews.com...
[2]:http://www.themedguru.com...
[3]:http://it.emory.edu...
[4]:http://bigthink.com...
[5]:http://www.ucc.org...
[6]:http://www.westarinstitute.org...
[7]:http://www.popsci.com...
[8]:http://www.news-medical.net...
[9]:http://www.aacap.org...
[10]:http://latimesblogs.latimes.com...
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by adontimasu 4 years ago
adontimasu
I almost rage-quit reading this thing when Pro said that the founding fathers were Christian.
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
*refer to my previous comment*
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Ron although you won I would debate you on if same sex parents where just as good as heterosexual ones or if homosexuslity us hard wired
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Did you really cite LeVay?
Posted by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
Oh man I want to debate Ron on this now
Posted by Asenseofjustice 4 years ago
Asenseofjustice
why did u remove my comment?
Posted by Asenseofjustice 4 years ago
Asenseofjustice
People only think that gay marriage is good because we in a society like ours today, people think if we look down on people who are homosexual it'll make us seem like we are judging them for what they are and that is socially not accepted. I'm not saying I'm pro-gay marriage, I am against it, but I just wanted to share my idea.
Posted by Ron-Paul 4 years ago
Ron-Paul
Sure. Regarding the US.
Posted by acvavra 4 years ago
acvavra
I can edit the debate if you like ron paul
Posted by acvavra 4 years ago
acvavra
Yes
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by TheOrator 4 years ago
TheOrator
acvavraRon-PaulTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro mostly posted unjustified claims in the round rather than claims supported by evidence or logic. Considering that and the fact that Con expertly refuted these arguments, the argument vote goes to Con. Because Con flooded the debate with sources, and Pro used two for the entire debate, Con gets the sources debate as well.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
acvavraRon-PaulTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro attempted to rile up hatred based on his religion. Con had actual arguments.
Vote Placed by royalpaladin 4 years ago
royalpaladin
acvavraRon-PaulTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con provides better evidence for economics and tolerance as well as AIDS spread. Pro just makes stuff up.
Vote Placed by heisenberg 4 years ago
heisenberg
acvavraRon-PaulTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 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:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Decent debate, but I think Con ultimately did a much better job. Most of Pro's economic arguments and ones concerning aids were simply silly. Con was able to effectively refute Pro's constitutional arguments and any adverse effects gay marriage would have on society, while showing how gay marriage would be beneficial to society. For that reason Con was more convincing and should win this debate.