Homosexuality.

Before I give my final conclusion for this debate, I’m going to quickly address a few of my opponents comments last round. “I think we can both conclude that having same sex parents does create issues for their children in general, but that these issues are not so great that we would even consider banning same sex parents for the benefit of the children involved”. We both cannot agree that having same sex parents creates issues for their children, in general. In fact, I find the opposite to be true. And a multitude of sources, including a brief from 4 accredited psychological associations, agree with me. “Now, if both parties could agree upon this point, then it brings both parties together with a common understanding. Having something in common is an ice breaker. It opens the doorway for communication. It will mean more kids will talk to their parents. It means more parents will try and understand their kids. If everyone can say 'it's not normal but it doesn't have to be normal and we can all deal with it", then dealing with it in a satisfactory way for both parties will become a reality. ” This idealism is sweet and innocent, but completely misinformed. In many cases, some homosexuals concede to your point, and agree they are not normal. But, discrimination and bigotry are still prevalent. Why, because until we give up the entirety of a homosexual lifestyle, anti-homosexual people will never accept our actions. Normalizing has nothing to do with it. The pure idea is that people do not like homosexuality, so they will never accept it, even if homosexuals admit we are not normal. “Everyone will contemplate a same sex attraction. Everyone will consider if they are gay or not. That doesn't make being gay normal. Everyone will contemplate having sex with their pet dog or not. In almost all cases the thought would be looked upon with disgust. ” And you call my delusion surprising. Firstly, I’m not sure about everyone, but I for one have bever considered having sex with my pet. Secondly, contemplate same-sex attraction and having same-sex attraction are two different things. You say everyone is inherently bisexual, meaning everyone has attraction to both genders. This is what I am arguing against. I do not feel everyone has attraction to all genders. Period. “But whatever you say can't change reality. Because there are examples of it happening already. As I said, just google "I am not gay but had gay sex". You can spend hours reading about how people were put into situations where against their better judgement they got involved with gay sex. You can read about the battle they now face for the rest of their lives. It is undeniable that normalising homosexuality will make this problem worse. ” It is not undeniable, because you’ve yet to show significant evidence of a society where homosexuality was normalized collapsing. “For instance, in Denmark, where 93% of people would feel entirely comfortable with having a gay neighbour, the suicide rate amongst homosexuals is still 8 times higher than the general population”. I’d like a source for this assertion, as well as case studies for at lease 10% of the suicide rates, proving it was homosexuality that lead to such actions. Until you can provide both, this argument has no credibility whatsoever. “I don't think I have ever come across bigger bigotry than that spewed forth by gay activists. Your comment itself is bigotry at its worst. Bigotry is not just prejudice against a group of people. It is the intolerance of opposing views, of which this comment embodies. We are both bigots. As to what is being more normal, if you ask the population if it is normal to be turned on by sticking your penis up another man's poop chute, or being repulsed by it, the truth will roast you alive. ” According to the Merriam-Webster definition, a bigot is: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group) [1]. Clearly I should have used this definition when bringing up the topic of bigotry, but I made the assumption that it’s definition was well understood. While homosexual activists can be very dramatic sometimes, I will assert that we do not show evidence of clear intolerance towards homophobes, otherwise there would be far more violence against them. Here’s where your particular logic gets to me. Calling us bigots can be justified, in some regard. Calling us bigger bigots than you is beyond baffling to me. Until we’ve killed, raped, beaten, and psychologically damaged a small percentage of your people, only on the basis that you hate gays, you cannot say that we exemplify the biggest bigots in the market. “It is NOT a 'right' that you can marry someone of the same sex. You have the same marriage rights as everyone else, there is nothing stopping you from getting married. What you are asking for is something different, and it must be labelled differently because normalising homosexuality has evil consequences. ” Yet again, my opponent fails to provide evidence of evil consequences occurring now that homosexual marriage has been legalized. “Something you don't appreciate here is that repulsion to homosexual interaction is not a learned trait. Repulsion is just as naturally occurring as your attraction. Your demand for 'rights' are just as discriminatory as demands against - except they are discriminatory against a much larger section of the population. ” Our demands for rights are NOT discriminatory because they DO NOT TAKE AWAY THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS! If we demanded that only gay marriage be legalized, or that only gay adoption be legalized, or that only homosexuality be legalized, you’d have plenty to go on. But all we are asking is that our rights be legalized WITH your rights. This, in itself, is not discrimination. Homosexuality is inferior, and there is no getting past it. Heterosexuality can provide society with the most profound gift of new life, and yet you claim that "there is no evidence to prove such a claim". I shall not refute these claims, not because they are correct, but because doing so without abandoning civility is nearly impossible. I’ll say only one thing: to call any group of person on this earth inferior is prejudice at it’s finest and all but solidifies my point that homosexuality experiences far more backlash than homophobia. Citation: . http://www.merriam-webster.com... __________________________________________________ Now for my conclusion for this debate: My opponent’s arguments assert the following: Homosexuality is not normal. The normalization of homosexuality is evil. If this happens, many horrendous outcomes will follow. My opponent has only come close to proving one of these issues, which is that homosexuality may not be normal. All other assertions have no conclusive evidence and are considerably ludicrous to assume. While homosexuality may not be normal, the “normalization” of it would not be a bad thing. The statistics my opponent brought up are far less academic than they seem and are speculative in their nature. In other words, they do not prove that bad things WOULD happen, they only suggest that bad things COULD happen. This is why you should not vote Con. Voting Pro would be voting for the arguments that actually consisted of evidence. My arguments proved my opponent’s assertions incorrect. They also supported my assertions. When Con attempted to refute my claims, the usual rebuttals were, “Men have a penis, women have a vagina. Homosexuality is not normal, therefore normalization of it will be bad! Therefore, any pro homosexual points are wrong! ” Any other rebuttals have been addressed in the debate itself. However, lets get technical with this debate to really look at who should be elected the victor. In nearly all of their arguments, Con made “fact statements”, which gave them considerably more BoP than I. While I occasionally asserted issues as fact, I used accredited data to prove my assertions correct. In most cases, Con did not. This leads be to urge you to vote Pro. In conclusion, Con’s arguments are nothing more than a self-justification for their open bigotry. Now, they will argue that I am a bigot as well, and to that my response is this: I have no ill will against anyone who views homosexuality as abnormal. In many cases, they provide sufficient points to argue this with me. What I do have an issue with is people who support further oppression of my people. What I do have an issue with is people who define any group of people as inferior solely because they are different. However, I do not view people like this as evil. And that is where the separation between hate and dislike lies. Con clearly has issues with homosexuals in general. However, I’m not here to comment on that. I’m here to comment on the debate. In that case, Con failed to argue against homosexuality without letting their bias blind them into thinking their arguments were fact instead of speculation. In many cases, I concurred that my arguments may not be fully true. But, I did provide sufficient evidence as to why they could very well be true. Con did not do this, so con should not win. Thanks to my opponent for a very interesting debate. Please message me if you have any questions or desire to discuss this topic further.