Invitation to a formal debate regarding homosexuality

[Pah]

I extend this invitation to any whose oppose homosexuality.

I wish to formally debate, in "One on One Debates", the following topic - Same-sex marriage should be condemed by United States law. Applications may be posted in this thread and a final affirmation team will be posted

I, alone, will take the negative side; the opponent or opponents with affirm the statement. Afirmation will go first followed by a refutation. Should there be more than one that would like to debate, the afirmation team will take turns in responding to the statement. Should there be three or less opposing me, there will be a maximum of six rounds of an affirmation and a negation. Four taking the affirmative will respond twice for a total of eight rounds. Greater participation will have the affirmation take turns until each has responded once.

Four days are allowed between responses. An extension may be agreed upon between myself and the next respondant. The debate will close when the rounds are expendended of a team forfeits a response. A response will be limited to two posts not to exceed the character limit for each post

Any respnse from someone other than agreed upon participants will be summarily deleted. However, a parallel thread will be created for discussion of the debate for all RF members.

References:
Rules
Debate Technique

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

Pah, I think you are a trully wonderfull debater and would love to debate with you on an issue concerning homosexulaity. I just have two reservations though. The first one is that, for me personally, homosexual marriages in the U.S. is a nonissue for the simple fact that it really doesn't matter to me whether or not those who live a homosexual lifestyle can get married. I truly believe it is a sidetrack issue when it comes to homosexuality. Please do not take that as a downplay of your passion for the issue, that is just where I personally stand on the issue. To resolve this reservation, I propose to have a one on one debate with you over traditional Christian criticism of homoseuality, which ofcourse would include what you would percieve as, a debatable condemnation of homosexuality in the Bible. Now I am sure we would have to touch all sorts of related issues in this debate, not to exclude homosexual marriages, but to just stick to homosexual marriages to me is just a losing battle being as how it would'nt matter to me one bit if the U.S. decided to allow them. In other words I believe it would be more productive to get to the core of the issue here.

The other reservation I would have is the four day deadline for responses simply for the fact that with work and a family and my anticipation of how in depth your posts will be, I may not be able to reach that deadline. The only way to fix that problem on my end would be to ignore my family and I just simply can't do that, which I am sure you understand.

Now, I am confident from what I have seen from you in the past that you will not resort to superimposing meaning into my posts or personal life due to the stance I will take and the sensative nature of this issue and I will do my best to to the same. I hope you will except.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria

 

[Pah]

I respect your time constraints. Family is very, very important and thus one of the major reasons equality must be acheived for all legal orientations.

The fact of the matter is that homosexuality is not a religious issue applicable to the country as a whole. Those that hold opinions of homosexuality based on faith are encouraged to maintain those "truths" for that is another American freedom granted by the recognition of the right to worship as one chooses. The debate I present on the forum for the religious side are given not to "sway" others but to present arguments from a valid American faith. They go to show that there are myraid interpretations of what faith holds - none being ascendant over another.

Thanks for your response.

 

[michel]

I am almost tempted to play devil's advocate just for the sake of providing you with an oponent, but I know you will tie me in knots; besides, I would hate to say something in public that I know would upset my homosexual friends here.

 

[Pah]

I am almost tempted to play devil's advocate just for the sake of providing you with an oponent, but I know you will tie me in knots; besides, I would hate to say something in public that I know would upset my homosexual friends here.

I appreciate your response, Micheal, but this debate will go into details of American law. As smart and intelligent as you are, this is not something you have ready at hand.

Whether I present a good debate, or even have no opponent, my point will be made that the issue in the United States is one of equality and not, nor can it be under Constituional law, a religious matter. Even the faiths that support same-sex marriage acknowlege this.

This thread makes moot all religious argument against the gay community. It will be frequently referenced. Those with strongly held religious belief who oppose homosexuality, will lose if they fail to debate and probably lose if they do.

 

[Fluffy]

If you don't get any volunteers then I will be happy to play devil's advocate although I would rather just watch the debate play out so I can get a chance to learn more about American law, especially as, it has always seemed to me at any rate, that as soon as one brings law into the debate, one comes onto dodgy ground very fast.

 

[SoliDeoGloria]

The debate I present on the forum for the religious side are given not to "sway" others but to present arguments from a valid American faith. They go to show that there are myraid interpretations of what faith holds - none being ascendant over another.

While I agree that there are a myriad of interpretations of what faith holds, I am curious as to what standard you use to make the statement that none are ascendant over another? Sorry to take this thread off course a little but I had to know. We may have to take this discussion to another thread.

Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria