Debate Info

install flash for graphs
Doesnt hurt anyone Hurts everyone?
Debate Score:757
Arguments:3
Total Votes:1230
Show More Stats

Argument Tags

side graph
Show All Tags
 
 Doesnt hurt anyone (307)
 
 im scared now (5)
 
 Doesnt hurt - does affect (4)
 
 nosey conservatives (3)
 
 bible (2)
 
 it hurts them (1)
 
 Love Justice God (1)
 
 sarcasm-lots of bitter sarcasm (1)
 
 hurt some (0)
 
 relative again (0)
 
 Hurts everyone? (-4)

Debate Creator

Inkeddreams(25) pic



How can gay marriage hurt any one?


Doesnt hurt anyone

Side Score: 527
VS.

Hurts everyone?

Side Score: 230

Arguments Tagged As: relative again [clear]
Vote Up Vote Down
2 points

No, I do not fear you. If I had made a more controversial argument, possibly, but I was trying to make the point that this was most certainly a heated debate.

If I am not mistaken, there is a hormone balance test. With this test you can measure the amount of hormones your body contains.

I know what research says, but I believe that gay is a relative term. However, if you take a look at many of my past debates you can see I find a ton of things relative ;)...

Now, what I mean is...Let's say Joey is gay (random name, I promise)

Joey was born with a unbalanced of hormones, and he chooses to live the way his hormones balanced him to be.

Now, let's say Mark is also gay. (random, really)

Mark was born with unbalanced hormones. However, Mark is a Christian, and believes God does not want him to live his life as a gay man. Therefore, Mark decides to suppress his gay feelings. By doing this Mark chooses the Lord over his sexuality. It does happen, rarely.

Now, I might come across as a raging Christian here, but that is not my intention. While I am a Christian, I don't run around yelling at people who choose to live a different lifestyle. Like I said, that is not my place.

I also find it interesting how churches have accepted the gay community. My philosophy is we are in urbanized America. When I say that I mean that we have churches that don't use old-time principles any more. Whether that is wrong or right is all in the eye of the beholder.

367 days ago | Tagged As: relative again
Vote Up Vote Down
1 point  

When I said statistically I wasn't insisting there were statistics. There is statistical data in whatever you're looking into wether it already exists as a "statistic" or not.

Just, logically, look at what I'm saying and you shouldn't need a pretty colored chart with numbers all over it. I'm basically saying for every 999,999,999 children born in all of time, into a mother/father environment, how many have really, honestly, failed because they were "accidently" conceived of. less than .05%-.005%, and I would bet money on it. Even at that rate, that's anywhere from 500,000 to 50,000 people effected because of accidental birth, raised in a mother father environment, out of 999,999,999.

How many raised by same sex? Because it hasn't happened in nature, because it can't happen naturally, that number is significantly higher. You have 99999 people raised by gays or same sex, and you have 99 fail, that's still .09%.

Even though 49,999 people is more than 99, statistically speaking, more fail raised by same sex seeing as the the fail rate by the accidental is .005%, and the same sex is .09%.

None of these numbers are taken from anywhere, but they should be adequate enough to demonstrate my point.

356 days ago | Tagged As: relative again
Vote Up Vote Down
-3 points
Popular Debates in Politics: Which side has more "bigots"? Will Obama win in 2012? Obama and socialism



About CreateDebate
The CreateDebate Blog
Take a Tour
Help/FAQ
Newsletter Archive
Sharing Tools
Invite Your Friends
Bookmarklets
Partner Buttons
RSS & XML Feeds
Reach Out
Advertise
Contact Us
Report Abuse
Twitter
Basic Stuff
User Agreement
Privacy Policy
Sitemap
Creative Commons



©2009 CreateDebate, LLC All Rights Reserved. User content, unless source quoted, licensed under a Creative Commons License.