The debate "LGBT should be banned because of the humanity" was started by
May 19, 2019, 4:33 pm.
17 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 56 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Hellow posted 16 arguments, killer posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
JDAWG9693 posted 3 arguments, historybuff posted 5 arguments, Nemiroff posted 8 arguments to the disagreers part.
HRGertge, amir_alhakim07, killer, lukeluckynuke123, Hellow, syazaizyani, hollieg, Rodolfo and 9 visitors agree.
JDAWG9693, historybuff, justincase, Nemiroff, imjustheretommorow, wtann6979, Damian, DanielSays, mingbcc164, sssk, bernie, Damn, eva_pet35 and 43 visitors disagree.
so you don't want to ban lbgt advocacy groups?
I didn't say they shouldn't have freedom if speech. All I said was. "if you want to ban Advocacy groups fine, I won't argue for that." They still will have their freedom of speech. I don't care if they are around or not. I don't want to ban Advocacy groups.
what is the difference between banning advocacy groups and banning freedom of speech? arent advocacy groups just using their freedom of speech?
I'm sorry for not being very clear then. I wasn't referring to a group, and I'm sure the Author wasn't ether. I don't mean a group of people, I don't know how else to put it. LGBT advocacy groups. How about disbanding LGBT groups.
Well if you said let's ban Christian, all I would ask is "Why" I would assume that you wouldn't actually mean Christian people until I get a good idea on what you mean.
If you want to ban Advocacy groups, cool, fine. I wont argue for that.
as we said, you must mean banning either lbgt people, or LGBT advocacy groups. because the words "banning lbgt" makes no sense in English grammar.
that's like me saying we should ban christian.... do I mean Christian people? christian? Christian advocacy groups? I dont know what your point is, your English is wrong.
and ASSUMING you mean banning LGBT advocacy groups, which is the most logical conclusion, then my analogy as far as banning all other advocacy groups include Christian groups comes in.
Then that defeats the hole purpose of you comparing Christians to LGBT then. If LGBT isn't a practice, why did you compare it to a Religion?
again, I dont know what lbgt practice is. I think people have the right to be attracted to who ever, or act as feminine or masculine as they want. I also believe they have the right to speech, including advocating their concerns. these are the basic practices of American freedom. that is what I believe in and practice.
Well I mean, maybe not faith, that's probably over stepping it a little. But I mean I didn't realize it was a practice.
I don't know what "have faith in lbgt" means. can you define "lbgt"
Listen dude, thank you for taking the time to talk about what I mean. I really don't mean let's send them out of the country. English is one of my first. I am white, I learned a little Hindi(Surprisingly my first.) as well. I studied more English because I found it more interesting. Besides; I live in the U.S.
I get that they are only advocating for LGBT. What I don't know is why they stuck them together. Listen if it was something that people believed in then I had no idea. But when it comes to advocacy groups, I don't think they are needed. If someone wants to support LGBT, they can. If someone wants to support Christians, they can.
I really had no idea that people actually had faith in LGBT. otherwise I wouldn't have said it.
@jdawg, I also suspect that is what he means... however that is simply an assumption. which is why both me and buff kept trying to explain the conflict so he would definitively clarify it. which he hasnt.
@hellow I'm guessing English isnt your first language. it is very good, but the grammar and technicalities are completely foreign. LBGT is not an organization. it is people. you must mean LGBT advocacy groups. that they serve no purpose, and should be outlawed. I think that contradicts a fundamental constitutional right, but I just want to make sure we all agree about what you are trying to say.
also, why only LGBT? shouldnt we also ban Christian advocacy groups (as they are the dominant religion). or even Muslim and Jewish, etc groups as they have more or less as much rights as LGBT groups. how about farmers? let's get rid of farmer advocacy groups. you cant pick and choose if you go down this path... and heck, if this means the end to lobbying, I am down! but it's all in or it's discrimination.
feel free to discredit my opinion, I am here to try my Debate tactics. I am not really here for fun though, I just like debating.
It more and more sounds like he's referring to an advocacy group.
However, I do agree with the outcome of the case you are referring, that the owner had the right to not serve to the couple.
not saying your wrong. I just don't know any gay people that are.
OK, I will put this in nice terms, LGBT isn't needed. It's putting people together that are not straight. And gay people are happy without LGBT. How am I wanting to outlaw gay people?
The gay people can sew the cake shop. Then their problem will be solved. A shop doesn't have to give service to a customer. I don't know how that happened. That's the first time I have ever heard of it. That never happened to me. nor to anybody I know.
In that scenario. They may not want give serves to you. If it is discrimination, then sew. What kind of shop refuses service because of Bigoted things then sew. You said gay people are being discriminated against. There is a show called the queer I. I repeat, the queer I. were the show that's about gay people with fashion taste. There are shows like the walking dead involving more gay relationships. Not only that, Lesbian relationships. That's not an issue. I just don't see how gay people are being discriminated against, when I am seeing it every wear on T.V and the real world.
Ok so your argument is that LGBT advocacy groups should be banned? Because banning LGBT makes it sounds like you want to outlaw being gay.
Gay people still regularly get discriminated against. There was a famous case from just a few years ago where a cake shop refused to serve a couple just because they were gay. And since it is the argument that always gets made, that "people should be allowed to decide who they do or do not want to serve", I'll go ahead and comment on it.
If it is only 1 shop out of 100 doing this then it isn't really a huge issue, they have lots of other options. But if the majority of people in an area are bigots, then gay people could lose access critical services. I live in a town with only 1 grocery store, if they were allowed to refuse to serve me then the closes place to buy groceries is at least a 30 minute driver away. If they refused me service the next closest would be about 45 minutes away. In this sort of area, that kind of discrimination is incredibly disruptive to people's lives.
I just said they should have their rights, What is the point of LGBT to be around? they already have there rights, I'm not saying get rid of them.
Yes I know what that means dude. I literally just told you I'm Bia.
I think he's saying that the group being activist like they used to be when they were fighting for rights should disband. Like, they accomplished what they wanted, now there's no more reason for the group to be around.
Ok i am still quite confused. What do you mean when you say LGBT? My understanding is it stands for Lesbians Gays Bi-Sexuals Transgender. You are saying that should be banned, but are also saying they should have rights.
That sounds mutually exclusive to me. How can you ban them, but also let them have rights?
I argument to me was they deserve certain rights. My response was they do, all I said was it should be banned.
Yes I do think it should be banned. Take this from someone that is bia. If I want to go f*** a man, I will f*** man. If I wanna go f*** a woman, I will f*** woman. LGBT does not help me do that. it won't help anyone else be happy. If a gay person is happy f***ing a man, then why is LGBT needed? I did say gay people may have a problem coming out. But I know several gay people at a school I used to go to. Before this LGBT came out. They all seemed pretty happy to me. I was happy too.
It should be banned, it doesn't help society one bit. Keep in mind the stuck Trans With LGB. Me being Trans doesn't mean I'm attracted to a helicopter. just to point that out. I don't drink and I don't smoke. Those Actually harm society. I would not mind seeing those gone ether. They don't help anyone. At the same time, people are trying to make a living. You can buy a cigarette, you can buy beer. But you can't buy LGBT. Beer and Cigarettes are for everyone as long as your old enough. LGBT is only meant for people that arnt straight or don't have a problem with their sexual identity. Gay people will always have hard time coming out. Weather there's a LGBT or not
I'm not sure I follow your point. No one here is arguing to give them more rights than anyone else.
The topic is that LGBT should be banned. You are agreeing with that statement and have said that it should be because it doesn't help people. I would disagree with that on a fundamental level. Gay people are only attracted to their own gender. Therefore being with someone of their own gender makes them happy. There is a great deal of evidence that being happy increases your life expectancy, productivity etc. So banning LGBT would make people less happy which would hurt them and society in general.
As to your argument that because it doesn't help society, it should be banned. that doesn't really make sense. There are lots of things that don't help society that we don't ban. As a random example, cigarettes and alcohol. Those things are very clearly bad for people (i am not trying to argue being LGBT is bad just to be clear). But we don't ban them. They cause all kinds of addiction issues, health problems. Countless families have been torn apart by alcohol but it is perfectly legal.
No no. LGBT doesn't let you say it. You are already aloud to say it. Not Very many Lesbian have a problem coming out and saying they are. Maybe gay people. Being bia, really no one talks about. No one has a problem coming out on that ether. Trans, With or with out LGBT have a hire chance of cumiting suicide.
They already have they're rights, why you think we should give them more because they arnt straight? All men and women are Created equal, they have just as much rights as a straight man.
I'm confused. your saying we should get rid of LGBT, do you mean we should get rid gay people? do you mean they shouldnt have certain rights? do you mean they shouldnt be able to call themselves gay, or trans? what do you mean when you say "we should get rid of lbgt"?
So how is banning LGBT discarding they're freedom? I say get rid of it because really it means nothing. It's just a dumb thing to make people happy.
If it doesn't help anybody, why have it? All those non straight and Transgender will still have they're rights and freedom. LGBT is just they're to try to satisfy them.
why should something have to help someone for it to be allowed? dont you believe in freedom?
so what if it isnt beneficial? do you propose banning everything that isnt beneficial?
or are, my bad.
I don't see how LGBT is helping anyone. It's just something to appeal to people that arnt straight or not thinking they're the opposite sex.
He says it isn't hurting anyone.
what are you saying exactly? What does LGBT have to do with anal sex?
That is a weird argument. Does anal sex "do something for the world"? Other than some people enjoying it, not really. But that is hardly grounds to ban it. It isn't hurting anyone. What 2 consenting adults do with their own time is none of your, or anyone else's, business.
I do agree that LGBT doesn't do anything for the world, but why bring up humanity?
That's like saying men should be banned. It isn't something you can control. I suppose you could try to make a law about it, but would purpose would it serve? The only thing it could possibly do is give assholes an excuse to target a minority group.
What do you mean by "because of the humanity"?