The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Should Gay marriage be legal in all states?

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Zenexgoh has forfeited round #2.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/5/2019 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 884 times Debate No: 123592
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (43)
Votes (0)




Yes, Obviously. The lgbtq+ have been fighting for their rights since the dawn of time (rough guess)


I hold no ill will to these types- I love them well, But I understand the path to hell is paved in good intentions. The first mistake is to assume these people are just like us, You look over the fence; a kind, Gentle couple- never at odds with one another, Smooching all romantic like under the orange sunset. It is not so, I wish it was, But it is not.

I understand the conception of homosexuality being innate, But that is only partially true; a woman's sexuality is based on a mere 20% of their genome- while men a 40%. A good way to explain this is to look over at the San People in Africa, They are a polygamous society where only a small percentage of the men mate. So, If an ugly woman gets knocked up- but there is a more beautiful woman (better genes) the alpha would take care of her and not the ugly woman. So the ugly women who have children would commune together as the higher men would not waste resources on them. This environment enforces homosexuality among women, As they literally become lesbian couples.

Children with normal childhoods don't usually show homosexual desires- but children who have been sexually abused show a greater tendency towards these afflictions. So yes, It could come about biologically- but in most cases it appears from a traumatic event (or necessity, But I doubt in our society). There was a study done on a number of homosexual couples, It showcased how promiscuous they were- they could not stay with their partner for more than a year; they cheat on each other, Married homosexual men practice polygamy.

Now, If our culture normalizes these things, Just as the Greeks did, We could see a rise in this degeneracy. 78% of homosexuals have STDS and 33% of them are child molesters according to Katters Australian Party. It makes sense that they have a high number of child molesters if you take the gay uncle theory into account. In which your uncle being gay gave you a higher chance of surviving- so if 33% are child molesters, How many of them are pedophiles and don't show it?
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
43 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by billsands 1 year ago
i have no problem with gay marriage, But for the sake of domestic tranquility such issues as abortion gay marriage, And legal pot, Should be settled state by state perhaps more issues should be settled this way so liberal and conservatives can govern themselves as they see fit. . With only issues like basic civil rights being enforced nation wide, And some basic flat tax rate and basic welfare policies, Perhaps even socia security and health care policy would be better settled state by state
Posted by yade1 2 years ago
Continued. . .

If this idea of mine is the case, Then I was wrong in my debate.

I would have to prove that at least most of homosexuality is caused through sexual assault- that homosexuals danger the society in some way, And that it's normalization causes these dangers. Prove is the wrong word, The correct is that I have to state this argument to be the most likely- no science is going to be definitively proved until we. . . Transfer ourselves into computers or something.

On sexual assault. The most logical conclusion (if there is a high number of sexual assaults in childhood) that sexual assault causes homosexuality, And not vice versa. Firstly, It is known pedophiles, Commonly, Were sexually assaulted- this seems to be the cause of their pedophilia- but it also doesn't seem that far of a stretch that if pedophilia can be caused so can homosexuality. These are both sexual orientations promoting a relationship with an individual you cannot reproduce with, At least effectively for a thirteen year old won't be the best mother.

So what numbers can I scoop up? Not much really. There was a small study that said 34% out of a 1000 homosexual men were assaulted, But that is relatively small sample size. Another had 70% on bisexuals but I can't find the study, It's just a number. But, It also wouldn't be crazy to assume that people who are sexually assaulted as children are probably not going to openly talk about such a painful thing. The number I originally used. . . I can't find any study on it. So on that I was wrong, Or perhaps I just wasn't looking hard enough- who knows.

The next section is if homosexuality causes danger. Ever since marriage between gays became legal, The LGBT community has been rampant in all manner of degenerate acts (in my opinion), They promote sex work among transgenders (I saw Blaire White's story), They sexualize children in drag queen shows.

I'll continue. . .
Posted by yade1 2 years ago
I've read a little on this interconnection idea. The research on humans has been commonly connected with the effect of mutagens (pollutants, Chemicals in the environment) affecting our genes, Increasing the likelihood of certain diseases. Just like cigarette smoke can affect our genes and cause cancer.

We have not located a gay gene, There probably isn't one- it would be dumb to evolve something that would not allow you to reproduce. But there is an emphasis on chemicals in this interconnection idea, So in the case of homosexuals I theorize something happens inside the womb (I assume a higher dosage of estrogen) which than causes a person to become biologically gay.

I propose this happens early at birth because of a study done on which a people had to guess the sexual orientation of an individual, They were correct about 70% for men. We as well can tell if someone is gay, There are certain mannerisms that let you know right away- and you know you know this to be true. So it happens early enough to affect the brain during it's development.

Another aspect to take into account (in accordance to my estrogen proposal) is that they have similar tastes to females.

I propose there are biological differences between the genders. First off, You can go to anyplace around the world, Ask about the roles of the two genders and get similar responses, The majority cultures follow a similar formula- so it is highly unlikely the difference are because of socialization. Throughout colleges, In every corner that has one, Woman are usually in some sort of nursing, Teaching, Or fashion- evolutionary psychology has some theories on why this is the case.

Homosexual men tend to adore fashion and have feminine mannerisms. (Another point- this cannot be due to socialization, Because these men would have been pressured to act masculine- yet they show these feminine qualities. This adds weight to the idea of gender differences, And of homosexuals with more female brains. )
Posted by yade1 2 years ago
Good luck on your exams Phil-E-Cheesesteak.
Later on I think I thought of a better way to say my thoughts, Please read my earlier- earlier post beforehand. (my last post was a joke)

(Your argument is true, The data is indeed inconclusive- your statement on evolutionary psychology is true, It is theoretical. Yet- so is much of science, Evolution is a theory, Psychology is mostly theoretical- there is a plethora of ways to interpret peoples behaviors. Genetics is still mind-boggling, We don't know what life is, We don't know the purpose or what is consciousness- or even how to determine if someone or something else is conscious.

Science is faith-based. - But if you believe in nothing, You have no argument. Your argument doesn't debunk either of us, It reasons that both our statements have water.
So when you debated with me, You used this argument to reason my statements as inconclusive
- but at the same time you were stating your own claims about the matter on sexuality.

You had 2 arguments, One that said we need more data- while another was making claims. Do you see how this was confusing? How a debate should work is that (plus this is in the comments so little awkward) we both affirm opposing positions, Then go after each other. But you used this 2nd argument to disallow our thoughts on sexuality to battle one another, Whenever I made a claim you would state that it is inconclusive, Or theoretical. Which is true- but so are your claims. So in the end, Nothing was accomplished- there was no debate. )

*Something which I felt was confusing was your idea on the environment, Through interconnections to the genes, Influencing homosexuality, Wouldn't this go hand in hand with my argument? If genetics and environment are interlinked, It is even more important we produce a non-degenerate society. If homosexuals suffer more, Wouldn't it be more moral to create an environment where less homosexuals exist?

Happy holidays!
Posted by yade1 2 years ago
"Condoms also don't usually break during anal sex, The failure rate of condoms during anal intercourse is estimated to be 0. 5% to 8%. "

Why and how do you know that. I just woke up, And remembered that- it's highly suspect.
Posted by John_C_1812_II 2 years ago
Gay marriage is legal when it describes a marriage that is happy in all American united States.
Binivir and Unosmulier are a united state set for America under condition and Amendments to United States Constitution.
Posted by billsands 2 years ago
Aint nobodies bizness if you do
Posted by yade1 2 years ago

You say many interesting things that make me want to learn some more on stuff (especially that stuff on interconnected nature and nurture), Sorry if I came across as rude it's just late. This debate of ours is to convoluted now, And it is awkward to have it in a comment section. Perhaps we can do another subject in a more convenient way?

According to Dutton to the environment had the greatest effect on the individual's sexuality, Similar to that idea of yours that the environment affects sexuality. My whole hypothesis was that a culture, The environment really, That glorify LGBTQ would see a rise in these behaviors. Though you are extremely intelligent, My problem with you is that you go all over the place- some of my points you completely disregarded or chopped up to just a theory or hypothesis.

An example was when you stated that homosexuals children are more sexually abused because they are homosexual. The more logical thing I said was that being sexually assaulted caused you to be homosexual. It doesn't make sense why having a sexual preference sends signals for people to molest you. Now, I know the point of this statement was to show me there are other ways to interpret the data; but you stated it as if it was your claim, And than in rebuttal to my rebuttal- you defined Occam's razor, Barely acknowledging my claim- stating that the idea that just because something is improbable doesn't mean it's impossible.

Which is true, But when we are dealing with arguments over the internet we have no choice but to rely on these tools. We aren't experts, We rely on experts, We aren't going to scan through pages of data.

If your point from the beginning was to showcase this, You literally could have explained it in like a single post. Your ideas on this subject are similar to mine, A hodgepodge of different ideas we learned from here or there. You have not stood by some of your claims- you merely used them to confuse the argument.
Posted by billsands 2 years ago
the statistics sites for stds and child molestation are not just inaccurate they are libelous
Posted by Phil-E-CheeseSteak 2 years ago
*You are correct, I shouldn't trust a singular person- even if they are an expert. Please, Tell me who can I trust? - I can't trust my Occam's razor, I can't trust papers on evolutionary psychology because it is all theoretical (according to your genius), I can't trust evolutionary theory- because it is a theory, I can't trust algebra- I've never seen numbers, Just the concept, I can't trust my eyes- they are prone to illusion, My ears lies, My nose lies, My touch lies- illusion can affect them all. Memory is not precise, It is a reconstruction. I am just in deep-dark fathoms, And nobody can touch me.

My only point was that you need to recognize that your specific expert's theory was just that, A theory, And not even one that the majority of people within his field of expertise agree with. I didn't say you can't use Occam's razor, I actually happen to think it is an incredibly useful tool, I just said that you were using it inappropriately as a way to skip the evidence you would have to produce data and study wise in order to prove your hypothesis. Nice job trying to straw man my argument though since you can't actually disprove any of my criticisms of how you have come to any of your conclusions. I have to get back to finals, You can respond to my arguments if you want, But I probably won't comment back for a while since I'll be pretty busy, Good luck.
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.