On April 12th, 2015 starting at 10 am cst usa, I'd like to hold an organized debate on the topic at hand.

We'll require a moderator of no lean toward either side, and a speaker for both sides.

We'll have 4 rounds, each with 4 dialogues.

I.e.

Round 1 (against goes first)
Against speaker : *argument*
For speaker : *counter*
Against : rebuttal
For : counter rebuttal

Round 2 (for goes first)
For: *argument*

And so on for 4 rounds.

Speakers are limited to using only up to 500 words for each dialogue. To help you calculate this, you could type it into Microsoft Word first for example.

Moderator should try their best to keep the speakers in line, and to criticize them if you deem they are not appropriately responding (i.e., skirting around the other side's argument or question).

There is no other limitations as to how to debate, but it's recommended you avoid ad hominem to keep the debate running properly.

In this thread, you may request to become a moderator, and you may consol as to who should be the speaker for your side.

*extra notes: in the debate, only the speakers and moderators will be permitted to post.
In case of absence,we'll delay for 30 minutes, and instead select an alternate if necessary.
Try to organize yourself in a timely manner.
Try to expect the arguments of the opponents, strategize as to how you will debate and what you will bring up.
Avoid cyclical "chicken-egg" style debates at all cost.

This debate serves not to conclude the homosexuality flame wars,but to give it a decent summarization, or a civilized understanding at least.

*demands to be the for argue-er*

so what's the topic? Homosexuality can't really be debated can it? I mean its kinda like trying to debate cigar lighters

I can be a moderator. But probably not

Edited 4/11/2015 02:06:18

The topic is homosexuality.

However, the primary question we should argue roughly runs the line of:

Should homosexuality, and LGBT in General, be legalized, this including marriage and related activity?

Round 1 (against goes first)
Against speaker : *argument*
For speaker : *counter*
Against : rebuttal
For : counter rebuttal

Round 2 (for goes first)
For: *argument*

Rules are pointless; they take all fun out.

Mini-debate: Should rules be taken out?

I vote yes, since they take all the fun out.

>rules are pointless
>no doubt will use every fallacy in the book

Without rules, what would be distinction between everything up until the announcement of this event and the event itself?

These rules ensure each side gets equal commentary, that nothing counter-productive occurs and that the Speakers at least pretend to be respectful of each other.

Warlight

@Lawlz

Good read. This should be a useful reference for the debate.

im happy to post FOR homosexuality and/or gay marriage

Well since this is a new thread that I don't have to read 100 post since I'v been gone all

day IL make meh statement.

Homosexuality is define as thus

adjective
1.
(of a person) sexually attracted to people of one's own sex.

noun

noun: homosexual; plural noun: homosexuals
1.
a person who is sexually attracted to people of their own sex.

Song to listen to while you read https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7ut52Szpd-w

Is being attracted to your own sex necessary wrong? Yes. As to why it is wrong I will try to

the best of my ability to explain. Now we live in a world were being gay is considered unwrong

and religious views are being flamed at because they are the majority who disapprove of gays.

Now I will explain from what I have seen why both sides are pro and anti gay.

PRO

Pros belive being gay is natural, unharmful, freedom of expression. These are the three major

supports from what I have seen but I am sure there are more.

I will now direct the arguments and show why they support it and I will give my answer according to the statement.

Another song for you to listen to while you read.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4WuIGqXKMKM

Pros belive being gay is fine because it is natural in nature. Animals have sex with that of

the same gender. Thus being gay is a natural thing.

My answer

Problem with claiming it is natural as your support is that cannibalism, killing off un

wanted children and killing off inferiors proable a few other things I cannot think of.

Claiming that something is just because it is natural will have to allow these things to be

just cause it is natural.

Cannabism is deemed inmoral by people who stand with this view. But

if a person is wanting to eat another person claiming that it is natural shall you deny him?

This statement will be rejected as being to extreme though its point is valid.

As for killing off unwanted children. It is natural for some species of animal to throw away

unwanted children if they are not deemed worthy of life. And if you stand with the belive that

homosexuality is natural and is just you must also stand with the view of killing off unwanted

children. For Hitler deemed all who were not of Arian race inferior and be brought extinction.

Many who stand with homosexuality cause it is natural are against Hitler's ideal and deem him

an unjust person. As to why they do this is inconceivable. Hitler was doing what was natural

to him so can you blame him for doing what was natural? And I deem it hypocritical that people

find this wrong when yet they support abortion! How could you find the killing of children

wrong when yet yourself support the death of them?

Also, homosexual acts are natural in nature but not gay animals as being homosexual means being

attracted to the opposite sex yet these animals only want sex. So homosexuality is not natural.

Enough of the natural idea.

Deeming that homosexuality is not harmful is but the opposite. For one, male homosexual sex

is bad for the anal as our bodies where not made for receiving, only releasing. Second, males and

females are, in a good way, different. They complete each other like a puzzle prieces to make a

puzzle. When you connect all the pieces you have a complete puzzle. But when you try to connect

pieces that look the same you have assembled nothing. So a homosexual relationship is not a

complete relationship even though they may love each other, care for eachother it is a incomplete

puzzle. Not fulfilling each others wants.

As for child raising http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research

And lastly freedom of expression. We live in a society that upholds freedom "the pursuit of

happiness" as the most important thing in our society. Aristotle said that democracies uphold

freedom to high and forget virtue but this is straying from the subject. Supporters of

homosexuality because it is freedom and those who deny homosexuality are tyranical. But because it

is a freedom does that make it right? I have shown that it is unnatural, incomplete, and bad For

most of those raised by homosexual parents.

Now to answer some personal questions that may arise.

Would I ban homosexual marriage? Me being a Christian would have to say NO. It is the individual

choice to follow Christ and his teachings. If the Lord wanted to force someone to not be homosexual he would.

Do I hate gays? No, "love thy neighbor" for "all people are created equally" so we being

equals I cannot hate them for then I hate myself and those I hold near my heart.

Do homosexuals go to hell? Yes."All sin is equal", so homosexuality being a sin as are

murder and rape. It also states in the bible that the man is only met to have pleasure with

his penis with that of the vagina of his spouse. And women that pleasure with only her married

man. Do not let them deceive you by those who claim to be followers of His teaching yet say

"These people, being good men, are saved" for they are not saved because if they were good

men, claiming to be his followers, live a life of sin? These who claim this are false,

corrupted heed not their word.

Spoiled Apples Ruin the Bunch

People whom claim to be Christian yet say "God hates fags" or something of the like or just

plan out flaming. are wrong and are NOT christians. For God "Loves equally" we are "equal in

His eyes" and "Sin is equal". So claiming this thus, inturn, would imply that God hates you

which he doesn't as it clearly states he loves us all.


We as Christians are suppose to teach His word with love and patience.

By the way I say this for Christianity alone. I represent no other religion. So don't ask me questions you that are really for colonial.

ITS COLONEL YOU CAN LITERALLY SEE IT

Well I don't plan on shipping homosexuals on an island to die so...

I know this whole shipping them off to an island thing has been slapped around ever since whoever (colonel?) said it, but has anyone consulted LGBT on this plan? Are we sure they would be against it?

Because as a dyed in the wool hetero, if someone wanted to ship me off to a tropical island full of potential partners, well...I wouldn't say "no" and we'll just leave it at that.

A wise man speaks before us.

Because as a dyed in the wool hetero, if someone wanted to ship me off to a tropical island full of potential partners, well...I wouldn't say "no" and we'll just leave it at that.

this is reminding me of a discussion I had with Kellen once...

How does someone being gay hurt you? It is none of your buisness if they go to hell or not, or what God thinks of them