Instigator / Con
Points: 1

Gay Pride

Finished

The voting period has ended

After 1 vote the winner is ...
debater445
Debate details
Publication date
Last update
Category
Society
Time for argument
One day
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Winner selection
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
30,000
Contender / Pro
Points: 0
Description
Things to note:
1. This is not at all an attack on people who are sexually abnormal/queer. This debate is about Gay Pride itself.
2. Both debaters have the burden of proof for their argument.
3. Pro believes Gay Pride is good for the LGBT community, as well as society, and must prove why.
4. Con believes Gay Pride is bad for the LGBT community, as well as society, and must prove why.
Round 1
Published:
     Gay Pride started in June of 1970, after the Stonewall uprising only a year before. There are many accounts of this interesting event you may find online, although the event itself is irrelevant to this argument for reasons I will get to. Here's one, anyway:
     At the time, these parades and the celebration of Gay Pride made sense, as they were commemorating progress for the LGBT community. However, in our modern age, people who are in some way sexually abnormal have been given about the same level of respect, if not more, than most people. Now, by pushing this celebration which takes up 1/12th of the year, we are forcing it upon society that anyone LGBT must be protected at all costs, and must be given extra benefits. 
     The attacks on the LGBT community are getting worse. However, this is because society is pushing for things like Gay Pride and forcing it upon people. In response, people with rather discriminatory ideologies will retaliate. A similar thing is occurring with affirmative action and the KKK. There will always be very unreasonably discriminatory people in our world who will have a hatred of a group of people. However, by doing things that unfairly give an advantage to someone by simply being a member of that group, you are further fueling hate groups and allowing them to gain more supporters. By using things like affirmative action and Gay Pride, you are dividing Western society into groups defined only by a trait of theirs they cannot control, which is fair to no one. 
      The LGBT community has been accepted by most. Of course, there will always be bigots of some sort who will hate them for that defining trait. However, you aren't helping by getting society to define people only for these traits that are out of their control. When you do this, you further isolate them and force them into a situation where people will have an unfair bias towards them, either unfairly hating them, or unfairly loving them. People are people, and should only be judged by their accomplishments, credit, and personality. That's what the ideals of this country always have been, as hypocritical as early America was. 
 
Published:
This is a five Round debate and only one day to post Rounds so I have two reasons (just stated) to put as little into R1 as possible with regards to research etc. We'll explore all that fancy stuff later. Let's get to my framework and where I believe this debate should go:

What's 'good' and 'evil'? Like, Con is saying so far it's evil to cause conflict between gay-haters and gays... So, which side should be taught to shut up and cower to the other side? Should the bigots learn to accept the homosexuals, bisexuals and transgenders or should instead the latter be made to cower to the hatred of the bigots? Hmm? I'll wait and see if a case is made to explain why it's gay pride that should be hated and tamed and not those who are on the other side of such conflicts.

Being gay, unlike being a pedophile, hebophile or animal luster, is what Con has under the umbrella 'abnormal sexuality' but is very different to them. Whether gay, bisexual, pansexual or exploring which gender you identify with, the 'harmed individual' of the sexuality is either no one or the self. Obviously, all relationships can be toxic and harmful, even heterosexual ones, but that's not what I mean when I say 'not harmful'. What I am referring to is that it's just as pleasant a relationship and sexual encounter for both parties that are consenting. Therefore, to umbrella that alongside sexual orientations that must indeed be oppressed for society to function morally (such as paedophilia) is a bit ridiculous. If you're sexually attracted to something that if you were to act on it would cause very severe physical and psychological damage in both short-term and long-term senses then that's an issue and not something to be proud of (but still something you should confess and I think society should become more open to letting such individuals say what they have the urge to do, so that then there are publicly available and widely known coping mechanisms so they never have to act on their urges).

Being gay, bisexual, pansexual or transgender is something that has been irrationally oppressed and shamed for millennia (not centuries, even the first humans were most likely homophobic as back then it mattered very much to reproduce as our species was growing).

Gay pride is automatically a good thing because it has only benefits for society and the gays and only drawbacks for scum who want to bully and oppress pleasant and harmless avenues of identity and sexual orientation.
Round 2
Published:
     To start, I'm not saying that bigots and gays are at all on the same tier. What I'm saying is that things like Gay Pride further cement their twisted world view, and can allow them to gather followers. I'll get to why in a moment. For example, things like the BLM movement caused a larger amount of KKK supporters to emerge. Now, BLM started in 2013. Coincidentally, KKK supporters started to rise in the early 2010's. Here's an article from the Southern Poverty Law Center showing the coincidental rise in KKK supporters: https://www.splcenter.org/news/2019/02/19/hate-groups-reach-record-high 
     So why is this happening? Why would something like Gay Pride, or BLM, be inciting more hate and backlash from society as well as too much love from other portions of it? The reason is because we are still doing what society has claimed to move past, what we should ideally be past. We are still using a single, uncontrollable trait of someone to define them rather than the accomplishments or personality of that person. If someone comes out as gay, it shouldn't be a big deal. It should just be recognized as a minor, insignificant trait of that person and nothing more. With Gay Pride, you don't see them as just other people. They are isolating themselves into their own group over something that, in our modern era, should be seen as insignificant because it is out of their control. In response, because things like Gay Pride are being forced onto society, we are being forced to define people by that trait rather than what really matters about a person. In response, people will likely not be able to see a gay person as nothing more than a gay person. A person who is gay will be babied and overprotected by some, and attacked by others, for something completely out of their control. 
     Another thing to note is that people who are under the classification of LGBT were not a collective culture until society attacked them for being the way they are, in which they had to group together and defend one another. However, because society is not truly past this, and we are still defining people only for these traits that are again, out of their control, they are being stuck in this group like it's a culture. Yes, they have similar sexual preferences not of the norm. That's great that they have their preferences. That doesn't mean that they are better or worse than anyone else, or that they're that different. The whole point of having equality is that everyone is equal until someone does something(such as a horrendous crime) that warrants them to lose their equality to a degree. 
     What I'm saying is that Gay Pride further reinforces that anyone who is LGBT is different from anyone else simply because they are LGBT. They deserve special treatment, and if you ever disagree with them, that means you're obviously attacking them for this specific trait and you're automatically a bigot. Many people will see a drift in society, and how different they are from those who are LGBT, which in turn will cause them to see LGBT as more foreign and unrelatable. What we want is for people to accept our differences from one another and how miniscule they actually are, because otherwise the tribalistic nature of humans will take hold, as seen with hate groups such as the KKK, and we will be further divided and pitted against one another. 
     
Forfeited
Round 3
Published:
I apologize for the inconvenience of a shorter time frame to post your argument. Here, I'll continue to explore my previous points.
Basically, the goal of movements like Gay Pride should be to show how insignificant our differences are, and unite people. Instead, Gay Pride highlights the differences between straight people and those who are LGBT in a forced and aggressive manner. 
To further this point, let's look at the Straight Pride parade that is supposed to be held in Boston on August 31st. If LGBT people can celebrate their sexuality, can't straight people celebrate theirs as well? 
Instead of support and agreement, the media bashed the idea of such an event. If a movement wants to cause conflict and divide people into groups, you'd do it by establishing and defining groups, and then proceeding to promote one group and bash another. 
Is it really good that Gay Pride exists? Your sexuality should not define you at all, yet that's what this movement is essentially doing. 
Alright, I've made my points, and I hand the spotlight over to my opponent.

Published:
I don't comprehend the case of Con. Maybe this means I've lost or maybe it means I've absolutely won.

Con is completely agreeing with Pro that gays being oppressed is the bad thing 100% and that the people garnering support to hate gays are the toxic thing.

Con is advocating the coward's way out of 'well what if they garner more support the more we love gay people and they are proud of it.' 

See, here is where Con is wrong and has completely lost all footing on which to win, if I do actually somewhat understand Con's case that is:

Unlike with ISIS who gained support the more that Islam was oppressed in other nations, the case here for being a coward to homophobes is not at all the same. The gay pride movement isn't a movement that is inherently oppressing homophobes, therefore the analogy is quite simply outrageous to make.

Every single thing about fearing the homophobes and how they can gain support from the hatred can be flipped back onto Con entirely since the more they hate gays, then LGBT support will grow too, by that very same logic.

Although they sometimes look like carnivals, Gay pride Parades are an opportunity to show that all citizens should have the same rights in our society. 25% of gay teenagers commit suicides, often because of tremendous homophobic climate. Gay Pride Parades are a way to fight against the return of ideas that affect the whole society.

Pride has been celebrated every year in June since 1970 after the 1969 Stonewall riots in New York, when police raided the Stonewall Inn.

In Canada, Toronto’s Pride was launched in similar fashion after protests erupted when police raided four bathhouses in February 1981 and arrested hundreds of gay men.

The motive has always been — and should remain — political. A reminder to all outside and within the LGBTQ community of our thorny relationship with police and the laws that aimed to dehumanize us.

It’s a time to honor how far we’ve come — but also how much further we still need to go.

It’s still perfectly legal in some states for employers to fire people on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. According to workplace advocates Out & Equal, only 22 states and the District of Columbia prohibit employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau recently apologized to the thousands of LGBTQ men and women who were fired by government agencies, including the military, between the 1950s and 1992. They were investigated and interrogated, some even forced to undergo polygraph testing, then discharged because they were considered threats to national security. It was a “gay purge,” and it was still happening less than 30 years ago.


Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his family in Toronto, June 25, 2017.
Geoff Robins, AFP/Getty Images
Visibility and equality
These fights for acceptance and equality aren’t over.

Living proudly and openly in societies where your well-being (emotional, physical, professional) is constantly at risk is nothing short of brave. The fact that we are seeing more people live openly and honestly despite these challenges is a miracle.

Almost every day, we see threats made against members of the LGBTQ community. The scaling back of hard-earned rights and protections of LGBTQ people, particularly transgender people, is difficult to ignore.

So when straight people ask why there is a need for gay pride or wonder why there aren’t straight pride celebrations, it feels a lot like they are saying contributions by LGBTQ people — a minority group that faces constant adversity — are simply not worthy of recognition. Further, they’re denying the importance and significance of identifying as LGBTQ and achieving things — surviving, even — when the odds are stacked against you.

The resilience of the LGBTQ community alone is worthy of celebration. We are miracles.

Round 4
Forfeited
Published:
Checkmate.
Round 5
Forfeited
Published:
Haha, let's call it a day.
No comments yet
#1
Criterion Con Tie Pro Points
Winner 1 point
Reason:
Con round 1 is basically that Pride is being forced on people and that is causing substantial push back.
Con also argued that people are people and should be judged by their accomplishments and similarities not their differences.
While con set up this argument simply, and it could be easily knocked out of the park; pro largely ignored cons entire case.
Pro made a few assertions that gays shouldn’t have to bend for bigots; the middle paragraph of his opening seemed largely irrelevant to cons case: the finale was not much better, with con claiming that gay pride can only be beneficial with little reason I can see for him to conclude it.
I wanted to see a clear and concise explanation of what Pride is about, what relevance it has, and why the push back should be ignored.
Con continues by emphasizing that pride gives the impression it is trying to demand special treatment; and that as society is not yet fully ready, apparently for gay people - the open push of pride is a bad thing. To be honest this is all a bit of a stretch here and didn’t add much to the opening point.
The final round from con was more constructive, that pride should be about celebrating similarities; rather than aggressively highlighting differences.
Again - in the final round pro completely misses this point con was making; and produces two quotes that pro gives no context for, description of or associated argument. If pro doesn’t offer an argument, I can’t weigh the quotes as con is NOT debating against Chris Hanna.
I don’t think cons argument is great or even particularly valid; and to be clear I view this as a pretty typical boiler plate right wing argument hinges on misrepresentation , and one based on a position of largely ignorance that really doesn’t understand either the nature or detail of gay pride or the issues at work.
Saying this; pro had the easiest possible case to make that I would have accepted: use an equally boiler plate left wing argument to explain the history of pride, that it isn’t forced on society, and to express that the push back isn’t caused by pride, but caused by inherent bigotry that wouldn’t go away if gay people hide away - or any one of a number of trivial arguments he could have produced.
However pro does not do that, and mostly avoids making an argument that is relevant to cons case at all; or that even goes into any particularly depth on pride.
Because of this - I have to give this to con