The Instigator
Rob1Billion
Pro (for)
Winning
56 Points
The Contender
shwayze
Con (against)
Losing
15 Points

homosexuals should have the same rights as anyone else, including 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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/28/2007 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,604 times Debate No: 1095
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (57)
Votes (23)

 

Rob1Billion

Pro

Homosexuals are people just like everyone else. They are not homosexuals by choice, it is inherent in their genetic makeup. For people, mainly conservative Republicans, to try and deny any rights to them at all is a violation of their constitutional civil rights and their constitutional civil liberties.
shwayze

Con

There is no evidence that people are born gay. Until anyone can prove that there is a definitive "gay" gene, then I will always believe that no one is born homosexual but that it is a choice.
Debate Round No. 1
Rob1Billion

Pro

I cannot show that you are wrong, and you have a point: until they do in fact find that gene, I cannot use that argument. However, realize that they may find that gene tomorrow, and if you plan on keeping that stance, I would be worried, if I were you, that you might find yourself in a much less stable position on this subject.

I'll assume from here on in that homosexuals are gay by choice.

What good does it do to smother the rights of homosexuals? We cannot hope to change them, I can assure you of that, and while there may not yet be a gay gene, their homosexual tendencies are very deeply ingrained and cannot be affected by politics. There is a small percentage of people who are more of the "confused" type, who could be socially maneuvered into a heterosexual lifestyle, but most homosexuals I know are gay all the way through the bone. If we cannot hope to change these people, then what good does it do to oppress them? Would you like to argue that they are not oppressed? Well then why don't you look at the famous supreme court case bowers v hardwick from 1986. Read that and then tell me homosexuals are not oppressed... I would like to hear your defense. Sodomy laws, which could place homosexuals in jail for very long prison sentences, have since (recently) been ruled unconstitutional, however the job here is far from over. Homosexuals are PEOPLE just like you and I. We do not have the right to pass judgement over them. They have a right to start a family, just like everybody else.

But what about the family values arguments? First of all, family values arguments are complete and utter nonsense. Everyone's family values are different, and there is no way you can justify making family values into laws. What about the children who see two men get married, and think that is OK? Well, personally, I am heterosexual, and no matter what age I am at, whether it be 5 years old, 12 years old, or 26, there is no way I am going to see two guys get together and make me want to try it. I think there are plenty of completely heterosexual guys and girls out there, and nothing is going to change their sexual orientation. The same goes for homosexuals; nothing is going to change their sexual orientation. So why don't we just let them be? What business is it of ours, how they live their lives?

There are religious arguments against homosexuals, and I am not religious so I can't really address those. I can say that religion is personal; you can't use religious arguments to pass laws, oppress people, or do ANYTHING AT ALL THAT AFFECTS ANYONE ELSE. Religion is simply philosophy, perhaps with a dash of superstition. The only arguments that hold any water in law and debate are arguments based on facts. When Christians try to affect homosexuals with arguments based on their personal, religious beliefs, they are being completely immoral. The worst human rights violations in the world are the result of religion affecting politics.
shwayze

Con

shwayze forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
Rob1Billion

Pro

Well I will just forfeit my last round, since my points have not yet been refuted. This debate was way too short to get anywhere productive.
shwayze

Con

Considering no scientist or expert has found a "gay" gene yet after decades of research, I'm not really worried about a "gay" gene being found anytime soon. And look, if they do find a "gay" gene then I'll support their cause for marriage. I don't have a problem with gay people at all. I've know a few and loved them just like I love my friends. I do though have a problem with gay people getting married.

Of course there is hope to change gay people. There are several amazing organizations that help these people change their lives. I especially want to point out http://www.exodus.to... which has some very powerful and moving testimonies of gay people that became straight. It's not like Exodus goes out and finds gay people to oppress and convert. THEY COME TO EXODUS. I think that says a lot. These people realized that something was wrong with their lifestyle and make a change. The results are inspirational.

I like your choice of the word "oppressed" when dealing with gay people, as if government is starving them of all things human, but yes I guess I agree with you that gay people are being "oppressed". Isn't that obvious?

I think the family values argument is strong against gay marriage. You said: "What about the children who see two men get married, and think that is OK? Well, personally, I am heterosexual, and no matter what age I am at, whether it be 5 years old, 12 years old, or 26, there is no way I am going to see two guys get together and make me want to try it."
There's no way that you can say that. My opposition to gay marriage is in large part due to the destruction of the family unit that this country has cherished since its beginning. If two gay men were allowed to start a family and adopted a young boy, how would the child think "THIS IS MESSED UP" if he's been nurtured and raised by his own two fathers? I think the upbringing of two fathers or two mothers would psychologically mess up the child. A child needs a father and a mother, or at least one of them to fully develop and mature; it's called maternal and paternal care. Having two mothers or two fathers is going to especially confuse the children. Child X's friends have a mom and a dad, but child X has two moms? He asks his parents why he doesn't have a dad. Do you not see the problem here? Kids are going to grow up terribly confused and the family unit is going to be destroyed, and that is a major problem.

You said: "Religion is simply philosophy, perhaps with a dash of superstition."
Sorry but that is one of the most foolish and idiotic things I have heard in a while. I'm sorry to hear that you are not religious, but coming from a Christian background, religion is way more than just a philosophy; its a relationship. This country was founded on Judeo-Christian values and being a Christian, I draw my opinions on gay marriage from the Bible. God clearly states that marriage is a gift from Him and that marriage is between one man and one women. It's a little harder to talk about this since you are not religious, but I highly suggest you pick up the Bible sometime and read it. In closing, I just want to state that I have nothing against gay people. I love them like anyone else. They are good people. But I do have a problem with gay people starting families, as I think it would have major ramifications down the road that would destroy the core element of unity in the United States: family.
Debate Round No. 3
57 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by left_wing_mormon 8 years ago
left_wing_mormon
Yeah sorry I would have responded but my computer crashed, so yeah...Thanks for taking it though
Posted by Sappho_Incarnate 8 years ago
Sappho_Incarnate
"this is a typical liberal...running away when we get down to the truth."

Was this addressed to me? Darling, I haven't been on this site in months and *not* because I'm afraid of you. I may be tired of arguing with you, but I can keep going if you're feeling so insistent.

First of all, I'm not a liberal. What a stupid thing to assume that I'm a liberal just because I'm gay, especially when it clearly states on my profile that I'm moderate.

Second of all, what do the basic fundamentals of Christianity have to do with someone's orientation? What injury does a homosexual couple do to the world that makes their relationship such a grave sin? Personally, I believe humans were given a purpose beyond reproduction and that much more can come of a relationship between two people than mere children. So do explain, why exactly is it a sin?
Posted by Rob1Billion 8 years ago
Rob1Billion
LWM I assume you are addressing Schwayze, simply because your profile says you are pro gay marriage... I couldn't really tell from the comment alone...
Posted by left_wing_mormon 8 years ago
left_wing_mormon
Wow, how can you speak for the gay community? If you aren't gay than how can you say that? You know how hard it is for some gay men to deal with their homosexuallity? You got pressure from soceity, family, work, ect. It isn't easy for most, so why would they choose? Wait....Are you...gay?
Posted by Rob1Billion 9 years ago
Rob1Billion
wow you guys are still keeping this old debate going. Goldspurs, my point was that if you think the couple shouldn't have the right to be married, then I would hope you have a good reason for denying them that right. If you have a good reason for it, you shouldn't have a problem telling the couple they shouldn't get married. Your spineless position of thinking that they don't have the right to get married, yet not wanting to admit to them that you are one of the people standing in their way, shows us that you are not on the better side of this argument. Does that make any sense?
Posted by shwayze 9 years ago
shwayze
this is a typical liberal...running away when we get down to the truth.
Posted by shwayze 9 years ago
shwayze
I didn't say you cant be a Christian and a homosexual, I said that it just doesn't make logical sense or follow the basic fundamentals of Christianity. Of course you can be a Christian and a homosexual...I'm pretty sure no one is going to (or should) stop you from believing in your faith.

you said: "Even if it is wrong, isn't everyone a sinner anyway?"

What kind of logic is this?
Posted by Sappho_Incarnate 9 years ago
Sappho_Incarnate
Why? Even if it is wrong, isn't everyone a sinner anyway? For you to say I can't be a Christian because homosexuality is a sin is hypocritical.
Posted by shwayze 9 years ago
shwayze
my personal opinion is that it does not make logical or reasonable sense to be a christian and a homosexual.
Posted by Sappho_Incarnate 9 years ago
Sappho_Incarnate
I'm a Christian too, and I beg to differ.
23 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by U.n 11 months ago
U.n
Rob1BillionshwayzeTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:10 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture.
Vote Placed by Rob1Billion 7 years ago
Rob1Billion
Rob1BillionshwayzeTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:70 
Vote Placed by left_wing_mormon 8 years ago
left_wing_mormon
Rob1BillionshwayzeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Lithobolos 8 years ago
Lithobolos
Rob1BillionshwayzeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by griffinisright 8 years ago
griffinisright
Rob1BillionshwayzeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Scyrone 9 years ago
Scyrone
Rob1BillionshwayzeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Logos 9 years ago
Logos
Rob1BillionshwayzeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Bitz 9 years ago
Bitz
Rob1BillionshwayzeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Pat6564 9 years ago
Pat6564
Rob1BillionshwayzeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Sludge 9 years ago
Sludge
Rob1BillionshwayzeTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30