CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
So just because you have the 'misfortune' to develop intimate relationships with people of the same gender, you automatically can't get into politics?
What is wrong with homosexuals? I actually don't even like distinguishing between heterosexuals or homosexuals. We are all people. Just because somebody doesn't want to 'get with' someone of the opposite gender doesn't mean they have a mental illness. They are perfectly healthy. It's close minded homophobes who shouldn't get anywhere in life.
No one has the right to deny anyone of their rights here in America! So why do the republicans keep using their faith and beliefs of what they think is right on others? Doesn't the Word of God say in (Acts 15) "It is through grace of our LORD Jesus Christ that we are saved, just as they are." Republicans open your eyes and your hearts and stop being so high and mighty, and love God's people He created. We have to love you guys don't we?
Even though I'm not a republican, or christian.. are you telling me I should love, paedophiles, rapists, murderers, dealers, transgenders, zoophiles, necrophiles, and all sorts of philes, genders, trisexuals, bisexuals etc. etc.?????
No one has the right to deny anyone of their rights here in America! So why do the republicans keep using their faith and beliefs of what they think is right on others?
This is actually not an issue of faith. It is an issue with people that have abnormal brain chemistry , and whether or not we should entrust a position of authority to someone who has brain abnormalities.
Doesn't the Word of God say in (Acts 15) "It is through grace of our LORD Jesus Christ that we are saved, just as they are."
This was not intended to say people are equal, it's talking about salvation.
Republicans open your eyes and your hearts and stop being so high and mighty, and love God's people He created
No one would suggest that someone with a bad heart should be a professional athlete. By the same token, people who are potentially unstable shouldn't hold a position of authority. It's not a matter of love or hate.
It's natural to be afraid of what you don't understand. However, we are at a point in our humanity that we can look past our ignorance and come to terms with what's real. Homosexuals aren't tiny little devils that want nothing more than to torment you, no, they are human beings. I sure hope that were all trying to promote general humanity still, because things like this debate really make me believe that all people are inherently selfish. Someone please tell me otherwise!
I'm not saying that homosexuals shouldn't have rights and it's not a matter of ignorance. Statisticly, gays are much more likely to develope mental illness. This is not based an faith or religious creed of any kind, it is FACT.
In my experiences, I have found that there is no such thing as right and wrong. Instead, there is only ones perception of the world.
In a world as filtered and proccesed as the one we live in, you can't speak of facts without speaking out of an opinion. It is folly to assume any singular incident as truth. That is contradictory to the nature of science. I am sorry, but self-inherited validation won't sway me.
Perhaps fact is a strong word, but there does exist many pieces of evidence to suggest that gays may not have the mental stability to hold a political office. That is not contradictory to the nature of science.
At least you are willing to reason. I can explain why your 'fact' is misleading.
Any individual who is outcastsd from society, in the most extreme to the least apparent level, will be affected psychologically thereby, reguardless of sexual orientation. How one copes with being alienated in the "land of the free" will vary by the individual, which is to say that derived sociological conditions cannot be focused to a demographic such as homosexuality.
Homosexuals have a major mental difference that can be detrimental in a political office. This is not a statement of sexual prejudice, it is a statement of fact (see link). Studies on this topic have shown homosexuals to be much more prone to mental illness that can appear without warning. They must seek mental mental help before being allowed into office or at least be closely monitored by a psychiatrist.
Normally, for a situation such as this, I would use the common sense argument against you, unfortunately, your lack of common sense would not allow you to understand it. Not only is it ridiculous to believe that homosexuals have some sort of mental disorder of such a magnitude that jeopardizes their ability to be in any position of authority, but basic logic would show you, if you were logical, that past homosexual politicians have had no connection to mental illness.
Since you provided a ridiculous source in an attempt to give your argument a basis, and since you lack any amount of common sense, I must disprove or disconnect the source because it is the only way that will get to stop talking. First, the source never states or concludes that homosexuals should not hold public office. Second,it does state that "homosexuals have a greater incidence of mental illness...than do heterosexuals" but it does not have a source for this so called "fact." The paragraph that contains this phrase, the one that supports your entire argument, is not backed by any sources. In other words, your first statement does not need to be disproved by me because you have failed to prove it in the first place. Third and last, a study was cited as saying that 37% of participants, all of whom were homosexuals, were sexually abused as children. The problem with this, however, is that all of the participants had a sexually transmitted disease. This greatly changes the conclusions of the researchers because had the abusers been healthy, the chance of them taking advantage of smaller people for sexual purposes would decrease significantly. So, not only is the statement that you based your entire argument on wrong, but even another attempted conclusion of the study is wrong as well. If you had common sense, you would have never asked me to disprove you. Sorry.......
past homosexual politicians have had no connection to mental illness.
As far as we know. But the number of homosexual politicians has been few, and mental disorders doesn't always occur in a noticeable fashon at first.
First, the source never states or concludes that homosexuals should not hold public office.
No. That was an inference I made from the findings of their higher probability of mental disorders.
it does state that "homosexuals have a greater incidence of mental illness...than do heterosexuals" but it does not have a source for this so called "fact."
The source I gave was an excerpt from a book called Homosexuality and American Public Life by Christopher Wolfe. There is a listing of all the sources and research studies in there if you wish to read it.
If you had common sense, you would have never asked me to disprove you. Sorry.......
I asked for an honest argument with logical reasoning. No need for an apology.
That was an inference I made from the findings of their higher probability of mental disorders.
Well good thing nobody actually found that, including your source.
The source I gave was an excerpt from a book called Homosexuality and American Public Life by Christopher Wolfe. There is a listing of all the sources and research studies in there if you wish to read it.
The particular quote that I listed had no source attached to it. It's the basis of your argument and there is no supporting study........
I asked for an honest argument with logical reasoning. No need for an apology.
Where exactly was my logic flawed? Had your statement been supported by a source, my logic would have been flawed, that is not the case.
It is from the book. The book contains all study information in the reference section.
The source you gave me was an excerpt from the book. Within the excerpt there were other alleged facts to which footnotes were attached. The footnotes, listed at the bottom, are references to other studies or other articles supported by other studies that give support to whatever the author wrote. This part: "Homosexuals have a greater incidence of mental illness, particularly depression and suicide, than do heterosexuals." does not have a footnote attached to it and therefore is not supported by any study.
I don't see how you're missing this.
I can't miss something that doesn't exist.
The link also says that the only reason why homosexuals may have a link to mental illness, is because they are abused by a hostile society. Even though the author did not prove that homosexuals have a greater link to mental illness, it explains that the only reason they would have it is because they are abused. In other words, just like any other human, if they are abused, they will have a higher chance of having mental illness.
Homosexuals have a major mental difference that can be detrimental in a political office. This is not a statement of sexual prejudice, it is a statement of fact (see link).
The link's argument is simply a logical fallacy. It misconstrues its own analogy. It quite correctly states that that depression in both instances is the result of a traumatic event. However, it takes the inability of social stigma to be considered the traumatic event in one scenario (divorce) as evidence for the same, unverified inability in the other scenario (homosexuality).
The assertion that greater levels of depression are implicit in homosexuality was not sourced; it was conjecture base on an inappropriate analogous situation.
There are minor differences between the brainwaves of heterosexual persons and homosexual persons; meaning there is little if anything "wrong" with them. Ultimately however homosexual people deserve equal rights to heterosexuals. However uncomfortable you may feel around said people is irrelevant- consider the discomfort they may feel around people such as yourself.