Challenge Match: semperfortis vs. MemoryShock: Times Are A Changing

The topic for this debate is "In the next 25 years, a proclaimed homosexual will be elected President of the United States".

semperfortis will be arguing the pro position and will open the debate.
MemoryShock will argue the con position.

Each debater will have one opening statement each. This will be followed by 3 alternating replies each. There will then be one closing statement each and no rebuttal.

Character limits are no longer in effect. You may use as many characters as a single post allows.

Editing is strictly forbidden. This means any editing, for any reason. Any edited posts will be completely deleted. This prevents cheating. If you make an honest mistake which needs fixing, you must U2U me. I will do a limited amount of editing for good cause. Please use spell check before you post.

Opening and closing statements must not contain any images, and must have no more than 3 references. Excluding both the opening and closing statements, only two images and no more than 5 references can be included for each post.

The Socratic Debate Rule is in effect. Each debater may ask up to 5 questions in each post, except for in closing statements- no questions are permitted in closing statements. These questions should be clearly labeled as "Question 1, Question 2, etc.
When asked a question, a debater must give a straight forward answer in his next post. Explanations and qualifications to an answer are acceptable, but must be preceded by a direct answer.

Responses should be made within 24 hours. One single 24 hour extension can be used by a member by requesting it in the thread. If 24 hours passes without response, you may proceed with your next post. Members who exceed 24 hours run the risk of losing their post, but may still post up until their opponent has submitted their next response.

This is a challenge match. The winner will receive 2 ranking points, the loser will lose two ranking points.



Given the controversial subject matter of this debate, I ask that our readers be respectful and allow our competitors to duke it out throughout the course of the debate. After the debate has commenced, it will be open to comments from our crew of fighters.

Thank you.

Challenge Match

Semperfortis vs MemoryShock

"In the next 25 years, a proclaimed homosexual will be elected President of the United States".

Recognitions::

First let me thank Chissler for setting up this debate and choosing the topic.. (WOW WHAT A TOPIC!!!)
My opponent whom I have the utmost respect for, deserves tremendous applause for his dedication to the debate forum, and of course his astounding ability to debate. I’m still going to kick his butt, but I thank him anyway…


Opening:

Homosexuality is a very controversial and popular topic among the members here at ATS. That being said….

In this debate I will show you that within the next 25 years, a homosexual could be elected President of the United States.

As my esteemed Opponent and I have agreed, we do not want this debate to devolve into semantics so please understand at the outset that I have no crystal ball and can no more predict the individual who will be elected, than you can.
What I can do is show you that society is advancing and in that advancement Homosexuality is becoming accepted as common place and will become more so as we move forward as a species. Society will eventually progress enough that an outspoken homosexual WILL prove to be a viable presidential candidate.

Together in this debate, we will examine Homosexuality and the increasing prevalence of outspoken homosexuals in every aspect of life as we know it. We are going to pay particular attention to our civilization in regards to society’s ability to accept change and even embrace the diversity nature presents to us.

I intend on exemplifying societies past acceptance of other groups of individuals, once looked down upon and scorned, and their now universal acceptance in all walks of life. We will see that as our nation moves forward and becomes more and more enlightened, we learn, slowly perhaps, but we learn to embrace our differences and even revel in them. Homosexuality is not specifically different in this aspect.

We also can not escape exploring the Christian religious right and other fundamental religious organizations and their impact on the acceptance of homosexuality. Today we see more and more tolerance of homosexuals in religion. They are no longer scorned and forbidden from being members of many of the varied religious organizations across this great nation.

As this debate progresses we can not help but look at former President Bill Clinton and his antics while in the White House. Some still tout him as possibly the best president in our lifetime regardless of his personal sexual shenanigans. Trust me, more on Bill later in the debate to include examining the cigar and pant dropping incidents

We will closely examine other past Presidents and perhaps uncover some “truths” in regards to their individual sexual preferences. It is not out of the realm of possibility that we have already had a homosexual president.

We will examine the past and how homosexuality has been considered a perversion and not accepted as a lifestyle causing homosexuals to repress their natural state of being and in essence live in hiding and shame. Once we have accepted that, without a doubt, homosexuals have already worked, served and performed in society in perhaps every profession, it will become clear that it is unavoidable for an outspoken homosexual to eventually become the leader of this great nation.

While we look at this topic, we must put aside our prejudices and examine this with an open mind; to do less than this is to be unfair to the topic, as well as the members and the ATS motto of Deny Ignorance.

Initially I would request everyone ask themselves this one question.

I will pose this as my first Socratic Question:

Socratic Question #1

“How does the sex life, whatever that may be, of a President effect his ability to do his job?”


I am sure my opponent will give us an educated and informative answer, however, we all must ask ourselves this question while reading this debate. It is an honest question and perhaps the foundation of the debate itself.


I am a firm believer in keeping the government out of our bedrooms. All across the nation governmental laws that previously sought to control and restrict our private sexual actions have been overturned, found unconstitutional or simply sit dormant; not having been used in years. This is because we as a society have moved past such prejudices and have begun to understand that what we do in the privacy of our bedrooms has no bearing on our ability to function in society, and is no one else’s business.

Finally we will look at other past societies, cultures and nations and how homosexuality was accepted there, even embraced, and did not limit those individuals’ abilities to perform any service even including ruling a nation.

During this debate we are going to touch on, examine and research topics that many will find emotionally charged. This is unavoidable and in my opinion, should not be avoided. The more closely we look at something we do not understand, the less likely we are to be afraid of it, repulsed by it or dismiss it out of hand. Homosexuality is no exception. Prejudice and bigotry are perhaps the most useless of feelings, emotions or opinions. (Depending on the individual)
They serve no purpose except to limit us and our growth toward enlightenment. However they are powerful and deeply planted within our history and personas. In order to look at this topic openly and honestly, we MUST put those feelings aside. Please as you read this debate, open your mind and look honestly.
Remember that humans have a natural fear of the unknown.

I am more than a little familiar with my opponent and his incredible ability to debate, so I can assure you this debate will be professional, researched and fought hard. I know that I will learn from this debate and my opponent, I can only hope that you do as well.

Remember:
Knowledge is POWER


Thank you

Semper

I as well would like to extend thanks to chissler and of course the readers.

I of course would also like to acknowledge the almost unbeatable style of my highly decorated opponent, semperfortis...please note that I did say almost..

Originally posted by semperfortis
As my esteemed Opponent and I have agreed, we do not want this debate to devolve into semantics so please understand at the outset that I have no crystal ball and can no more predict the individual who will be elected, than you can.

Yes I have agreed to the notion that "could" is a more apt term than "will" in the respect that no one can predict the future. It is indeed possible (very unlikely) that the United States will disband and make the office of President non-existent...

But it hardly matters either way; the status of our society and the length of time it takes for social change to become implemented is what dictates whether or not our leaders represent the will of a sub-culture(s) or the majority. And the majority doesn't like change.

That is not to say that many people aren't tolerant and that people aren't willing to embrace various sub-cultures, but it does mean that people are going to attribute opinions to various qualities other people present and...have. We as a society look up to the media for the round about news because that is what most of us can afford to do.

We all have our day to day lives. We get up in the morning, we go to work, we accomplish various social obligations and then we go to bed only to repeat (for the most part) the same sequence the following day.

The majority is heterosexual. The majority of our media and entertainment is designed for heterosexual interaction. Proof is in the fact that the advertising is designed to appeal to the sexuality...

Introduction: There are data that show that women are objectified in the media, that girls and women experience a high rate of body dissatisfaction*Snip*1

< br />
Why?

Because majority rules. Plain and simple.

That is not to say that the world is intolerant or can't abide homosexual realities...but it is to say that the majority of the population can't relate to their inclination.

I would like to emphasize that, I respect all walks of life and want others to live in a manner that is of their choosing. I have no issue with the personal decisions of another individual as long as those decisions do not pose an imposition onto others.

But the American Society doesn't appear to have as open a mind as I do.

Throughout the course of this debate, I will present for your consideration the fact that people as a rule want that which is comfortable. They do not want change because change has the potential to disrupt their own personal world views and their day to day lives.

Homosexuality is in indeed increasing in acceptance within the American perspective.

But that does not translate into an immediate universal acceptance.

This analogy between society and an organism focuses attention on the homeostatic nature of social systems: social systems work to maintain equilibrium and to return to it after external shocks disturb the balance among social institutions. Such social equilibrium is achieved, most importantly, through the socialization of members of the society into the basic values and norms of that society, so that consensus is reached.2

Within the current American society we have an overlapping of generations. We have regional identifications, where it is generally accepted that California is going to be more liberal than a bible belt state. We have a basic set of values and mores that allow for the various amounts of societal differences to co-exist. Change happens...slowly. Because we have a varying set of ideologies and upbringings.

That cannot be denied and as such must be attenuated to.

As a society, we have to consider everyone, not just the underdog...

This is the first year that the democratic ticket has produced a viable candidate that is either of African descent or female. The Civil Rights movements of the 20th century took place, in the fifties and sixties....and we still have regions of the United States that are biased towards it. The majority are obligated by law to tolerate...but that does not necessitate that all of them are willing to understand and accept the reality for their own personal lives.

That is a big distinction. To accept and follow. Elections are predicated on the fact that we as a society desire to follow someone of like mind. That is where the comfort zone is. We have yet, as a society, to establish that we are willing to follow the best mind, regardless of whether or not that best mind is homosexual; or of different race or of different gender; in nature.

Gay rights has been progressing for quite awhile and it isn't going to stop. Indeed, the rights of the individual are penultimate in a democracy and for homosexuals to not be afforded the same appeasements as the rest of the nation is hypocritical to what our nation purports through it's endless propagation of its' own ideology.

But just because gay rights has found a monumental victory in the state of California this past month by achieving legal marriage does not mean that the world is looking to that particular sub-culture for answers and advice just yet.

We need to get past the nature of one's sexuality and focus on the rules of logic when determining social policy and leadership capability. And we haven't even done that for gender roles as a society yet.

Socratic Question 1
“How does the sex life, whatever that may be, of a President effect his ability to do his job?”

He/She needs to have sex in order to be healthy. So the ability to do ones job well necessitates the capacity to lead a healthy physical life.

A healthy individual incorporates all aspects of life....a healthy diet, a healthy social life and a healthy sexual life.

Socratic Question Number 1:
If the leadership of a country is set up to identify with the majority population, then how can a minority sexual identification make the majority comfortable and thusly willing to vote for the minority identification?

As coarse and crass as this may sound, the world is just beginning its' motion to tolerate a change in its' interpretation of family and marriage, long held terms that the majority of the American population have held to be static for their entire lives.

Many people all over the country for whatever reason are recognizing that these once static definitions are now a bit fuzzier and perhaps not so static.

But...

Many people are still resistant to this change. For whatever reason, many people are adamant against these changes.

This is the first time, as I have stated, that the democratic party has produced two viable minority candidates...

Socratic Question Number 2:

What of the Republican ticket, which roughly stands for half of the political affiliation of our nation; How close are they to backing a candidate of African descent or a female?

My opponent is more than correct when he says that bigotry and prejudice are useless when attempting to reason out the direction our society should take. But that is irrelevant to the debate.e middle aged white men

This debate is more focused on how to integrate all walks of life into a seamless interaction...and that takes alot more time time than 25 years.

200+ years of older white men as the American President would definitely substantiate this trend.

I am as well familiar with my opponents debating prowess. And I expect that each and every one of us can learn from this debate. Because it is about us, never should it be about them.

I turn the floor back over to my opponent.

[edit on 31-5-2008 by chissler]

Challenge Match

Semperfortis vs MemoryShock

"In the next 25 years, a proclaimed homosexual will be elected President of the United States".

Reply #1

Upon reading my esteemed opponents opening it is obvious what is transpiring here; at least at the onset. My opponent has chosen to “tread lightly” and “sit the fence” in order to NOT upset the most people.

I am not so inclined.

A bigot is a bigot and prejudice is wrong. The sexual orientation of a person is absolutely NOT relevant, in any way, shape or form, to the performance of their particular job. No more than their race or gender. That is unless they choose for it to be, and in that instance, the individual is at fault and not the sexual preference.

Answers to My Opponents Socratic Questions:

Originally Posted By MemoryShock

Socratic Question Number 1:
If the leadership of a country is set up to identify with the majority population, then how can a minority sexual identification make the majority comfortable and thusly willing to vote for the minority identification?

Easy.

You assume that the leadership is “set up to identify with the majority population” and I submit this is not the case.
I draw your attention to::
1. The Electoral System
2. Affirmative Action
3. Number of Presidents elected NOT winning the majority vote

Under the Electoral System, a minority candidate has every opportunity to achieve the office. This does not even take into account such factors as the “guilt vote”, and the “non-voting” segment of the population.

Last I checked, Obama was a minority candidate.

Originally Posted By MemoryShock

Socratic Question Number 2:

What of the Republican ticket, which roughly stands for half of the political affiliation of our nation; How close are they to backing a candidate of African descent or a female?

If not for the current Democrat ticket, I would have said closer than any party. Looking at Condaleezza Rice and Colin Powell, both of whom had their names bandied around for consideration. I would say about even with the Dems.

Addressing my Opponents answer to my Socratic Question:

Posted by Semperfortis
Socratic Question 1
“How does the sex life, whatever that may be, of a President effect his ability to do his job?”

Posted by memoryShock
He/She needs to have sex in order to be healthy. So the ability to do ones job well necessitates the capacity to lead a healthy physical life.

Are you really going to stand by that statement? That one must have sex to be healthy? That means that approximately 50% of all married men are unhealthy.. Sorry, just a joke..

Seriously though, sex is NOT a requirement for health in any medical journal I have ever read. Could you please quote your source for that?

Rebuttal:

The majority is heterosexual.

The majority is also Caucasian and yet we have a Democrat frontrunner that is not.

Because majority rules. Plain and simple.

Not always as explained above.

but it is to say that the majority of the population can't relate to their inclination.

Yet how close are we coming to truly understanding that sexual orientation has no bearing on us as effective, productive members of society?

SAN FRANCISCO -- -- The California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage Thursday in a broadly worded decision that would invalidate virtually any law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation.

LA Times

In November 2003 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ignited a nationwide debate over same-sex marriage when it declared the state's ban on gay marriage unconstitutional.

Pew Forum

There are two examples of states that “get it”. The government has no business in our bedrooms. In 25 more years it is more than a little likely that legislation like this will be unnecessary as we will have moved forward enough as a society to accept that a persons sexual preferences are of no relevance to their positions in society.

Homosexuality is in indeed increasing in acceptance within the American perspective.

My case in a nut shell…

But that does not translate into an immediate universal acceptance.

But we are debating 25 years here; 6 more election cycles and as much as things have moved forward in the last 25 years, one can expect HUGE leaps and bounds. 25 years ago, you my opponent were wearing “Bell Bottom” pants and listening to Disco. (Don’t deny it)

Indeed, the rights of the individual are penultimate in a democracy and for homosexuals to not be afforded the same appeasements as the rest of the nation is hypocritical to what our nation purports through it's endless propagation of its' own ideology.

EXACTLY!!!

And as evidenced by the court rulings “exampled” above, one can see that we are already moving in the right direction. I submit that in the next 25 years, we will have reached our destination. Maybe not 100% acceptance, but enough that a viable, intelligent homosexual candidate will have a “shot” at achieving the highest office based upon his or her abilities and experience and not who they choose to sleep with.

A healthy individual incorporates all aspects of life....a healthy diet, a healthy social life and a healthy sexual life.

Socratic Question #1
“Are you saying that Homosexuality is not a healthy life?

Continuation:

25 years is a very long time in both society and politics. Just look at where we all were 25 years ago and where the world is now and one can not help but to imagine the progression we are facing in our lifetimes.

What chance did an African American have 25 years ago, effectively running for the office of President?
What chance did a woman have 25 years ago?
What chance did a homosexual have of being able to marry the one they love 25 years ago?

While my opponent has focused on what is transpiring today, the bigotry and prejudice we have all around us, I invite you to look forward as the debate title suggests, and simply tracking our past advances decide for yourselves what will occur.

Homosexuality is no stranger to leadership. In the past some of our most famous and successful leaders were either homosexual or bi-sexual and did nothing to hide that fact.

• King Gustavus V of Sweden, 1907-1950
• King Ferdinand I of Bulgaria, 1908-1918
• King Rama VI of Thailand, 1910-1925
• King Amunullah Kahn of Afghanistan, 1919-1929
• President Manuel Aza¤a of Spain, 1931-1933, 1936-1939
• King William III of England, 1689-1702
• King Charles XII of Sweden, 1697-1718
• Queen Anne of England, 1702-1714
• King Henri III of France, 1574-1589
• Holy Roman Emperor Rudolf II of Germany, 1576-1612; king of Bohemia (Czechoslavakia), 1575-1611; king of Hungary, 1572-1608
• King James I of England, 1603-1625; king of Scotland (as James IV), 1567-1625
• Emperor Jahangir of India, 1605-1627
• King Louis XIII of France, 1610-1643
• Tokugawa Iemitsu, shogun of Japan, 1622-1651

Rulers

Visit the link for the full list. I only included a few from the long list.

All successful leaders of their respective countries, yet now at a time when we proclaim to be enlightened, my opponent would have you believe we will balk at electing a homosexual to lead this great nation.

I submit to you that their sexual preference had no bearing on their ability to lead, and it would have no effect here in the United States.


Socratic Question #2
Do you think a Homosexual Candidate that never engaged in sex with a person of their own gender, would prove to be a viable candidate for President?

We all must remember that Homosexuality is a lifestyle, not a sex act. One can be homosexual and be attracted to members of the same sex, and remain a virgin.
This has generally been accepted by many Christian organizations across the nation as acceptable for membership in the church.

Many Jewish and Christian leaders, however, have gone to great lengths to make clear that it is the homosexual acts and not the homosexual individuals or their "orientation" that is condemned. Some liberal strands of both mainstream Protestant Christianity and Reform Judaism advocate, on theological as well as social grounds, the full acceptance of homosexuals and their relationships.

Religion Facts

I think that it is important that we distinguish the difference between the religious ideologies condemning homosexuality and the innate compulsions homosexuals feel. Religion as a rule condemns sex outside of marriage as being a sin. As marriage is most often defined as between a man and a woman, any sexual contact a homosexual would have, would by definition be considered a sin. Yet remember it is a sin for a heterosexual to have sex and not be wed to their partner.

In that context it is perfectly acceptable for a homosexual to be attracted to those of the same sex, and yet never act upon that attraction. If they are accepted by the church, admittedly the slowest organization for change, is it not reasonable to believe they will be accepted by the voting block as well?

Something’s that we need to remember here in this debate.

25 years is a long time.
Homosexuality is not a crime.
Homosexuality without the act is not a sin.
The American People are usually far more tolerant that most give them credit for.

Personally I can see an outspoken Homosexual Presidential Candidate within the next 25 years.

Thank you

Semper

Originally posted by semperfortis
A bigot is a bigot and prejudice is wrong. The sexual orientation of a person is absolutely NOT relevant, in any way, shape or form, to the performance of their particular job.

A very impressive statement for sure….but it has no real bearing on this debate since it is no contention of mine that the sexual orientation or practices of an individual in any way impacts an individual’s capacity to lead. Even on a national level.

But bigotry does exist. All over the United States. Just because we can both say that prejudice is wrong doesn't mean that the voting population will unanimously agree with us.

My opponent is only looking at the situation in a very narrow fashion if he wants to focus solely on the prejudice aspect of the topic. While there are many people who still maintain a prejudice against homosexuals, there are many who don't.

That does not necessitate that a non-prejudiced vote will be placed for the homosexual candidate.

Indeed, there are some people who may have viable reasons for not voting in a gay candidate. Perhaps they disagree with their stance on the relevant issues, perhaps they really do like the other candidate better because the other candidate is a better public speaker.

And again, we are not even necessarily discussing the voting inclination of one individual. We are discussing the voting inclination of millions of individuals. All who grew up in different areas of the country and whom grew up with different ideologies and values.

There are many different variables that come into play when considering how the American population will vote.

Which brings up another question. What gay candidates are available for a political office, much less who can make a valid Presidential campaign?

We are still waiting on our first openly gay state legislator. We are still waiting for our first openly gay Senator, Congressman, and Governor.

Before the American Public can even expect to see an openly gay President, the American Public needs to see a relevant political history from an openly gay candidate by which to gauge credibility and competence.

That is a very long road, especially since gay marriage is only recognized by just two states in the nation.

My opponent is attempting to make this debate about prejudices and ideology of the reader. I can come up with a piece of rhetoric that states how likely and certain I am is for a homosexual to become President in 25 years, based on guilting the reader(s) into thinking that yes, indeed, they can agree with the notion that a gay President is just around the corner so that they themselves don’t feel anti-gay by going against my opponent’s argument.

But this debate isn’t about prejudice or feeling guilty. It is about the nation overcoming its’ prejudice and the long road it is to turn this country into a bustling and intricate composition of a variety of minority groups whose social circles aren’t merely with their own.

Originally posted by semperfortis
You assume that the leadership is “set up to identify with the majority population” and I submit this is not the case.
I draw your attention to::
1. The Electoral System
2. Affirmative Action
3. Number of Presidents elected NOT winning the majority vote

For one, I do not assume that. And two, the reasoning is suspect. The Electoral System has resulted in the appoint of a President who has not won the majority vote only four times since it’s creation.

Q: How many times was a president elected who did not win the popular vote?

A: It has happened four times.
[1]

And it has only happened once since 1888…when it is argued (still) that George W. Bush stole the election via the state was Governor of.

So the “Electoral College” example is really the same as number three.

As for Affirmative Action…It has nothing to do with the voting process!!!

Affirmative Action is definitely a social policy designed to increase the number of minorities in the workplace, but it doesn’t apply to the voting process…from city level to national elections.

My opponent’s reasoning would seem to indicate that it is decidedly less “Easy” than his answer suggested.

And by the way, it’s not only the Electoral College that provides a minority candidate “every opportunity to achieve office”…it is the entire political system that affords that “opportunity”.

We are not debating the ideal of equality in having a homosexual President. If that were the case then we would just alternate minority Presidents for the next fifty years..until we reach scuba diving midgets.

We are debating the trend that America has established in voting minorities into office. It is still something that the American Public is getting used to and only after many decades of slow integration, not only in the public eye (every day situations as depicted by the media) but gradual political appointments in lesser offices.

Los Angeles just recently voted in it’s first Latino Mayor and it required the population of Los Angeles to have a majority Latino population, 47 percent in 2005 as opposed to the next largest demographic, 30 percent for whites.[2]

You’ll find that the Latino population was considerably lower, approximately 25 percent of all voters but the point is that the Latino was so huge that people accepted it as part of their reality.

It is this type of social identification that we are debating. And the homosexual reality is still breaking into the public eye…much less public office.

I don’t see that happening with alternative sexual orientation for quite awhile longer than 25 years, because the idea and the sub culture has to not only be firm in their existence but they have to be more visible in the public eye so that the classical stereotypes are shown to be fallacious or non-associative to other perceived personalities.

Originally posted by semperfortis
Are you really going to stand by that statement?

Absolutely. A healthy, consistent sex life does equal a more healthier life.

In one of the most credible studies correlating overall health with sexual frequency,*Snip*

Its findings, published in 1997 in the British Medical Journal, were that men who reported the highest frequency of orgasm enjoyed a death rate half that of the laggards.[3]

Originally posted by semperfortis
Socratic Question #2

Do you think a Homosexual Candidate that never engaged in sex with a person of their own gender, would prove to be a viable candidate for President?

No.

I think that a person who is homosexual and open about it, but did not engage in sex with one of their own gender would be a hypocrite and as such not a valid leader.

Further, I can see where my opponent has attempted to associate religious acceptance, albeit with stipulations, to the voting process of the nation. While the opinion of the majority population could indeed be assuaged by religious acceptance, I stand by the fact that the stipulations, if adhered to by the individual, do not make for a valid candidate because the stipulations necessarily entail that the would be candidate lie to himself and their loved one about their physical reality.

Originally posted by semperfortis
Socratic Question #1

“Are you saying that Homosexuality is not a healthy life?

No. There is nothing I stated that makes that a valid insinuation.

Which again illustrates my opponent’s attempts at making this topic about prejudice.

My opponent then provides a list of previous homosexual rulers. There are two major problems with this source:

1) The link is to a site that only lists historical figures and groups them under the heading of “Homosexual and bisexual rulers” without providing any , much less substantive, explanation or source links for these assertions. I chose King Charles XII of Sweden, 1697-1718 and did my own rudimentary research on him (one google page) and found nothing that readily vouched for his inclusion on the list. Which suggests to me that there are perhaps more than one included on that list that probably don’t belong there.

2) There is no ruler on the list that was the leader of a democracy. Which means that there isn’t a ruler on that list that was chosen by the people. Which means that his list, even if it were verifiable, is not even relevant to this debate.


I would like to make clear that I don’t believe this debate is centered on our personal prejudices, but rather on the whole of society and the fact that once a minority has overcome an obstacle (black rights are to voting as gay rights are to marriage, perhaps in this context) that minorities still incur a long and slow integration into not only the public eye but into leadership roles. There are many political milestones that must be attained so that history and experience can be cited so that a gay individual can be judged on his/her merits to the job.

And remember…we are still waiting for our first Black President and our first Female President. Two minority groups that have struggled for a much longer time in the public eye and we are still waiting for their respective representations in the highest of American public office.

Originally posted by semperfortis
25 years ago, you my opponent were wearing “Bell Bottom” pants and listening to Disco. (Don’t deny it)

I was four years old.

Challenge Match

Semperfortis vs MemoryShock

"In the next 25 years, a proclaimed homosexual will be elected President of the United States".

Reply #2

Rebuttal:

My opponent is only looking at the situation in a very narrow fashion if he wants to focus solely on the prejudice aspect of the topic.

Let me ask you this; what exactly would you like to focus on?

The topic of the debate specifically implies prejudice, bigotry, whatever you want to term it. It is your side of the debate that an openly homosexual will NOT be a viable candidate. If the reason is not prejudice, what exactly are you saying would be the reason an outspoken homosexual would not be elected?

We can not debate experience as we have no idea how much experience our hypothetical candidate will have in 25 years.
We can not debate likeability as again, we have no idea who the specific candidate will be.

The entire debate hinges on prejudice, bigotry and Homophobia…

Indeed, there are some people who may have viable reasons for not voting in a gay candidate. Perhaps they disagree with their stance on the relevant issues, perhaps they really do like the other candidate better because the other candidate is a better public speaker.

Again, you are inserting irrelevance here as we could use the same argument in regards to McCain vs Paul. This removes the entire relevant aspect of the debate topic. Homosexuality and the specific reasons someone would vote for or not vote for a homosexual.

Socratic question #1

If you do not want to debate the aspects of prejudice towards homosexuals and homophobia, are you intent on debating whether some hypothetical candidate would get elected regardless of their sexual orientation?

Socratic Question #2

If your answer is yes to Socratic Question #1; What does this have to do with the debate? If your answer is no, disregard this question please.

What gay candidates are available for a political office, much less who can make a valid Presidential campaign?

As we are discussing the next 25 years, they could realistically be 10 years old, so your question is rendered moot.

We are still waiting on our first openly gay state legislator. We are still waiting for our first openly gay Senator, Congressman, and Governor.

Not true.

Category: Gay politicians

Tom Ammiano: In 2008, he is a candidate for the 13th district seat in the California State Assembly. In 1975, he became the first gay public school teacher in San Francisco to make his sexual orientation a matter of public knowledge.

Barnett "Barney" Frank (born March 31, 1940) is an American politician and a member of the United States House of Representatives. He is a Democrat and has represented Massachusetts's 4th congressional district (map) since 1981. In 1998, he founded the National Stonewall Democrats, the national gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Democratic organization.


Matthew W. "Matt" McCoy (b. March 29, 1966) is the Iowa State Senator from the 31st District. McCoy is openly gay [2] and was the first openly gay[3] member of the Iowa General Assembly.

Gay Politicians

I have presented three and there are NUMEROUS more in the link I provided.

the American Public needs to see a relevant political history from an openly gay candidate by which to gauge credibility and competence.

As you can see by the proof I provided, they already have.

That is a very long road, especially since gay marriage is only recognized by just two states in the nation.

The facts are, as usual, not even close to being that simple. If you read here: 50 State Rundown on Same Sex Marriage Laws, you will see that MANY states are currently in the process of legislation.

While I am not saying this is going to happen over night, few things worth while ever do, I am saying the process is in the “making” and the next 25 years will bring enlightening changes.

But this debate isn’t about prejudice or feeling guilty. It is about the nation overcoming its’ prejudice and the long road it is to turn this country into a bustling and intricate composition of a variety of minority groups whose social circles aren’t merely with their own.

HUH?

You do realize that statement is a contradiction within a contradiction.

For one, I do not assume that. And two, the reasoning is suspect. The Electoral System has resulted in the appoint of a President who has not won the majority vote only four times since it’s creation.

It only takes ONE TIME to prove the validity of this debate.

And by the way, it’s not only the Electoral College that provides a minority candidate “every opportunity to achieve office”…it is the entire political system that affords that “opportunity”

Well thank you.. My point exactly…

It is this type of social identification that we are debating. And the homosexual reality is still breaking into the public eye…much less public office.

Again, reference my links above. I have shown you where this is not true.

I think that a person who is homosexual and open about it, but did not engage in sex with one of their own gender would be a hypocrite and as such not a valid leader.

Really?

How can you say that? Is it not hypocritical to make that statement? How about a heterosexual being a virgin, are they a hypocrite as well? Are only homosexual virgins hypocritical?

A see some prejudice showing here.

Originally posted by semperfortis
Socratic Question #1
“Are you saying that Homosexuality is not a healthy life?


No. There is nothing I stated that makes that a valid insinuation.

Then what ever did you mean here in reference to the debate? Or was it an off the wall comment not debate related?

He/She needs to have sex in order to be healthy. So the ability to do ones job well necessitates the capacity to lead a healthy physical life.

A healthy individual incorporates all aspects of life....a healthy diet, a healthy social life and a healthy sexual life.

Confusing.

There are two major problems with this source:

There are no problems. They ruled Nations; they were homosexual or bi-sexual. Plain and straightforward.

Just a note here: The United States is NOT a Democracy. We are a Representative Republic, much like Rome. See the relevance now?

I would like to make clear that I don’t believe this debate is centered on our personal prejudices, but rather on the whole of society

The debate is of course centered upon our personal prejudices and societies as a whole. You can not separate the two as our society is made up of individuals.

I was four years old.

Fair enough.


Continuation:

Sex is no stranger to the Oval Office. While we all know and are very familiar with the sexual antics of Former President Clinton, including the cigar and the dropping of pants, we need to understand that Presidents are people too. When compared to the sexual antics of some of our former Presidents, being outspokenly homosexual seems mild by comparison.

Andrew Jackson, unwittingly or not, married his wife Rachel while she was still legally married to her previous husband.

Harding's cheating was legendary. He reportedly had sex just outside his office in the White House with Nan Britton, a young woman who had idolized him since high school and who eventually had a child by him.

Kennedy, of course, had numerous affairs.

The writers reported that Jefferson had tried to seduce the wife of a close friend and neighbor (Jefferson later admitted to "improper" behavior toward the beautiful young woman),

Democratic candidate Grover Cleveland had fathered an illegitimate child by a Buffalo, New York prostitute while serving as the reform mayor of that city. Cleveland admitted the truth of the charge, stated that he was supporting the child and mother financially, won the election (for reasons other than his honesty about his ill-fated affair), and served honorably for the next four years. Although many Americans professed moral outrage at Clevelandâs behavior, the voting public elected him President again when Cleveland sought the office in 1892.

Find Articles
And
US History

As you can see, historically Americans have been VERY tolerant in regards to a Presidents sexual behavior; especially in times far less tolerant than now, or the next 25 years.

Now while my opponent would have you believe this is not about prejudice, I have no idea what else it could be about. If an outspoken homosexual was disregarded as a viable candidate, as the topic specifically indicates, how can this NOT be about prejudice?

Again I invite you to look at the advancements made in the last 25 years and look forward to the advancements coming in the next 25. As far as we have moved forward in eradicating prejudice, we are moving faster and faster as we become more open, honest and enlightened as a society.

There is absolutely no reason to NOT conclude that within the next 25 years, America will have an outspoken, proud homosexual as our president.

Thank you

Semper

Socratic question #1

If you do not want to debate the aspects of prejudice towards homosexuals and homophobia, are you intent on debating whether some hypothetical candidate would get elected regardless of their sexual orientation?

No. But that does not mean that you have a free ride to abuse the term 'prejudice' in this debate.

Indeed the topic of the debate includes a discourse on prejudice. But I take issue with your presentation of prejudice.

I am not here to throw around the hot term "prejudice", as it seems like a subtle ploy to instill guilt, which has no place in a rational debate.

Originally posted by semperfortis
Let me ask you this; what exactly would you like to focus on?

I would like to focus on the social and political trends America has displayed.

I am intent on debating and presenting all of the obstacles a gay man or woman has before him or her in the process to a Presidential Campaign.

It's not about our respective prejudice(s) or lack thereof. If that were the case, then it could be stated that moral reasons are the only obstacle to a gay President.

Some people have a problem with gay individuals because it disrupts their definition of the term family and marriage.

So, in a way, this debate is more centered on "Mass Conditioning" of the public to gradually give up their traditional definitions of family and marriage so that the connotation of homosexual doesn't immediately bring up a false sense of social deviance.

B.F. Skinner developed the concept of operant conditioning, which included the control of both animal and human behavior through the use of reinforcements.

The concepts, theories and practices of theses early European scientists have been coupled with the advent of television and other media—*Snip*—which allows psycholinguistic programming (brainwashing) to influence the thoughts and behaviors of both Americans and the industrialized world.[1]

That takes time.

Much longer than 25 years. Indeed, it takes a generation or two to forget that which their parents taught them and the socially accepted behaviour and attitudes of decades prior. It takes a higher integration of alternative life styles depicted in the media and by Hollywood. It needs various public figures that the public can identify with and rally behind.

Social perception, interpretation and subsequent behaviour is not a cut and dry situation.

My opponent is so hell bent on establishing the fact that a moral concept alone is the reason why a gay candidate isn't being elected today.

But my opponent does nothing to describe where this moral concept originates, how this moral concept is manifested in our culture and then proceeds to state rather bluntly that we should just not embody this moral concept of "prejudice".

If it were really that easy!!

Originally posted by semperfortis
Again, you are inserting irrelevance here as we could use the same argument in regards to McCain vs Paul. This removes the entire relevant aspect of the debate topic. Homosexuality and the specific reasons someone would vote for or not vote for a homosexual.

I am not inserting irrelevance by suggesting that a person would not vote for a homosexual individual based on a personal analysis of the issues. Because it would still prove to be an obstacle to becoming elected

As for the assertion that the debate topic is "Homosexuality and the specific reasons someone would vote for or not vote for a homosexual"…let's take a look at the debate topic…

"In the next 25 years, a proclaimed homosexual will be elected President of the United States".

The debate topic is focused on the time period between now and 25 years in the future and how public opinion will have changed or not changed with regards to homosexuality and that collective opinion would be conducive to the electing of a homosexual candidate.

As we can see, the debate topic is centered on why the public has its' opinions and how/why they will or won't change.

It is not inherently about prejudice for the sake of prejudice!

Originally posted by semperfortis
How can you say that? Is it not hypocritical to make that statement? How about a heterosexual being a virgin, are they a hypocrite as well? Are only homosexual virgins hypocritical?

It is not hypocritical to state that.

If I truly have no problem with the lifestyle of an individual, then why should I desire and expect any one to conform to any pre-conceived standard of that lifestyle? Especially a pre-conceived standard that was established by someone who is not of said lifestyle.

To truly be tolerant, you can't tell someone how to live if their lifestyle doesn't directly effect you!

Originally posted by semperfortis
Then what ever did you mean here in reference to the debate?

It was an answer to the first Socratic Question that was misconstrued to imply that homosexuality is unhealthy and attempt to establish a negative opinion of my views.

If my answer was read and interpreted correctly(and it should), it will be noted that I never stipulated a sexual orientation when making such a statement.

I will thank my opponent to not misconstrue my honest answers any further in this debate.

Originally posted by semperfortis
There are no problems. They ruled Nations; they were homosexual or bi-sexual. Plain and straightforward.

Socratic Question #1

Were any of the named rulers in the link that you supplied elected to a public office by a majority of the associated population?

And, there is still a glaring absence of any supporting material regarding a list of people that for all intents and purposes could have been written on a piece of paper, scanned, touched up and given a web address. That is a huge problem with the link

Originally posted by semperfortis
Sex is no stranger to the Oval Office.

Nor is it a stranger to public opinion.

I am interested in my opponent's glossing over of the Bill Clinton example as his sexual escapades resulted in an impeachment process that hasn't been experienced by the subsequent Bush Administration despite cries of willful misrepresentation of intelligence and war crimes [2]

This very recent example suggests heavily that the public puts more voracity in the image of the family structure and sexuality then it does in flat out lies.

And even in this very modern age of moral enlightenment there are still political careers ruined by homosexual association.

WASHINGTON (CNN) – It has been a truly scandalous few months for the GOP — for the third time in three months a Republican lawmaker is accused of soliciting sex with another man. Dated November 1, 2007[3]

Originally posted by semperfortis
As you can see, historically Americans have been VERY tolerant in regards to a Presidents sexual behavior; especially in times far less tolerant than now, or the next 25 years.

Socratic Question #2

Is the forced resignation of Washington State legislator Richard Curtis less than a year ago a demonstration of public tolerance of the sexual behaviour of a political leader?

Originally posted by semperfortis
If an outspoken homosexual was disregarded as a viable candidate, as the topic specifically indicates, how can this NOT be about prejudice?

Not solely prejudice. It isn't as simple as 'just' prejudice. I have demonstrated above that it is about the macro social movement that takes time to change popular opinion on alternative lifestyles. Much time.

Originally posted by semperfortis
There is absolutely no reason to NOT conclude that within the next 25 years, America will have an outspoken, proud homosexual as our president.

The Good Old Boys Club

Absolutely no reason?

Let's take a look at an interesting political trend, starting with Bush senior. Four year term. Followed by an eight year term by Bill Clinton. So far that's twelve. Clinton was followed by Bush Jr, an eight year term.. We're up to twenty.

There is talk that Hilary Clinton may be announced as Obama's Vice Presidential candidate [4].

If Hilary is announced as Obama's running mate, then there is a very real chance that a Clinton will return to the White for a possible eight more years.

Which would end up being a 28 year Bush/Clinton dynasty in the White House.

My opponent states that 25 years isn't a long time. But what of the fact that for the last 20 years, and perhaps eight more, only two families have had control of the White House?

That suggests heavily to me that the nation's voting public does not like change.

Or even perhaps that the puppet holders don't like change. Either way,

What chance does a homosexual candidate have in a political arena that has already been stacked in favor of those already in the office?

Unless the Bush's or Clinton's have an up and coming cousin who is vocal about his/her homosexuality, then I would say that the chances are even slimmer upon closer inspection.

Socratic Question #3

Do you recognize that the debate topic is inherently concerned with the macro social inclination for change, which is not necessarily motivated by prejudice?

Socratic Question #4

What do you think could explain the stranglehold the Bush/Clinton families have had on the White House?

It will take a lot longer than 25 years for a homosexual to be elected President of the United States.

Gonna need an extension..

Sorry, but a bear of a case has come up...

I'll get on this as soon as possible...

Semper

Challenge Match

Semperfortis vs MemoryShock

"In the next 25 years, a proclaimed homosexual will be elected President of the United States".

Reply #3

First and foremost I would like to thank MemoryShock for his patience and understanding in regards to my absence. Real Life came up and took a bite and I have been forced to work some terrible hours, but can say the case ended positively.

This is just an example of the professional and gracious nature of my opponent that truly makes him one of the best.

Now unfortunately I must tear him up..

Rebuttal:

I am intent on debating and presenting all of the obstacles a gay man or woman has before him or her in the process to a Presidential Campaign.

Socratic Question #1
“Other than prejudice, what obstacles would a gay man or woman face that a straight man or woman would not?”

Some people have a problem with gay individuals because it disrupts their definition of the term family and marriage.

How is this NOT a moral issue? How is this NOT PREJUDICE?

Definition: MORAL

of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.

expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.

founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.

capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.

conforming to the rules of right conduct (opposed to immoral): a moral man.

virtuous in sexual matters; chaste
.
of, pertaining to, or acting on the mind, feelings, will, or character: moral support.

resting upon convincing grounds of probability; virtual: a moral certainty.

the embodiment or type of something.

morals, principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct.

Dictionary

You may be confusing the distinctions that exist between individuals moral perceptions. We each have our own moral standards, none of which are right or wrong, they simply exist. Morals are personal, vary with each individual and are dependant on numerous external factors. However, placing one person above another, choosing one person over another because of a moral judgment or conflict, is by definition; prejudice.

so that the connotation of homosexual doesn't immediately bring up a false sense of social deviance.

EXACTLY as I have stated. That false sense of social deviance creates the prejudice atmosphere that is being rapidly overrun by societies more enlightened and accepting state. With this in mind, one can not help but conclude that a homosexual presidential candidate is right around the corner.

Keep in mind we currently have our very first presumptive minority candidate.

My opponent is so hell bent on establishing the fact that a moral concept alone is the reason why a gay candidate isn't being elected today.

Actually I’m “Hell Bent” on telling you that a homosexual candidate COULD stand a good chance TODAY and has an excellent chance in the next 25 years, for whatever reasons. I thought that is what I was supposed to be doing.

I will thank my opponent to not misconstrue my honest answers any further in this debate.

I don’t think I misconstrued anything, but let’s look.

You first stated:

He/She needs to have sex in order to be healthy. So the ability to do ones job well necessitates the capacity to lead a healthy physical life.

Then you said:

I think that a person who is homosexual and open about it, but did not engage in sex with one of their own gender would be a hypocrite and as such not a valid leader.

Yet you completely ignored this; so I will make it…

Socratic Question #2 and 2a
“How about a heterosexual being a virgin, are they a hypocrite as well? Are only homosexual virgins hypocritical?”

MemoryShock’s Socratic Question #1

Were any of the named rulers in the link that you supplied elected to a public office by a majority of the associated population?

Answer:

Yes

I am interested in my opponent's glossing over of the Bill Clinton example as his sexual escapades resulted in an impeachment process

Let us keep our facts straight shall we?

He was NOT impeached for his sexual antics, or for any reason other than Lying Under Oath to Federal Investigators.

The same charge that landed Martha Stewart in JAIL.. Clinton should consider himself VERY lucky.

MemoryShock’s Socratic Question #2

Is the forced resignation of Washington State legislator Richard Curtis less than a year ago a demonstration of public tolerance of the sexual behaviour of a political leader?

NO!!! Absolutely not…

If you are familiar with the case, then you know that he was a very OUTSPOKEN opponent of GAY RIGHTS, yet led a covert gay lifestyle that was exposed…

What the public can not tolerate is.. A HYPOCRIT

I have demonstrated above that it is about the macro social movement that takes time to change popular opinion

That popular opinion you are speaking of, is PREJUDICE by the way. I fail to understand your aversion to the term prejudice.

PREJUDICE

1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
2. any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable.
3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group.
4. such attitudes considered collectively: The war against prejudice is never-ending.
5. damage or injury; detriment: a law that operated to the prejudice of the majority.
–verb (used with object)
6. to affect with a prejudice, either favorable or unfavorable: His honesty and sincerity prejudiced us in his favor.

Dictionary.com

As you can clearly see by the definition, everything you and I have been discussing is centered on and about the prejudice involved in NOT voting for, NOT supporting someone simply because of their sexual orientation. The same prejudice we see becoming less and less evident in society. The topic of the debate.

That suggests heavily to me that the nation's voting public does not like change.

And yet an African American nobody Senator from Illinois is the presumptive democrat candidate for president.

That above all things proves my side of the debate.

MemoryShock’s Socratic Question #3

Do you recognize that the debate topic is inherently concerned with the macro social inclination for change, which is not necessarily motivated by prejudice?

Answer:
You are either just wrong or grasping at changing the dynamics of the debate. That “Macro Social Inclination for Change” is prejudice. See the definition above. So directly the answer is NO.

MemoryShock’s Socratic Question #4

What do you think could explain the stranglehold the Bush/Clinton families have had on the White House?

Answer:
Ability and popularity.
We have seen the same trends in the past. Some last, others don’t. Just Politics…

Continuation:

While my opponent continues to ignore, deflect and redefine prejudice, I will present to you more compelling evidence that an outspoken homosexual will in fact be a viable presidential candidate with the next 25 years.

Barak Hussein Obama

Remember that 25 years ago a serious black candidate for president would have been unheard of.

Remember that 25 years ago a serious contender for president being a woman would have shocked the world.

Despite my opponent’s deflections, we are speaking about prejudice. While we all have prejudices, I in fact, am prejudice towards Conservatives and against Liberals, the prejudice we are specifically referencing is that of sexual orientation; arguably of no concern as to a persons ability to perform their duties in any job, including President. I see the American public “getting” that more and more as we advance.

Just look at the examples I have provided of politicians serving effectively today, being elected and reelected regardless of being homosexual.

As we advance as a society, we are becoming more and more concerned with a person character and less and less with their color, religion and sexual orientation. This is without a doubt one of the greatest achievements of modern man; the ability to look past the external man and into the internal. But more on that in my closing.

I have no doubt that:


"In the next 25 years, a proclaimed homosexual will be elected President of the United States".

Thank you

Semper

Extension please....

Will have a response up on Sunday.

I would like to thank semperfortis for his patience with this reply and respectfully suggest that he is going to need a bit more than a 'trickling stream' if he is going to "tear" me up...(pronunciation..)

Originally posted by semperfortis
Socratic Question #1
“Other than prejudice, what obstacles would a gay man or woman face that a straight man or woman would not?”

Habit and Ignorance.

Originally posted by semperfortis
Socratic Question #2 and 2a
“How about a heterosexual being a virgin, are they a hypocrite as well? Are only homosexual virgins hypocritical?”

#2. No. Perhaps a heterosexual virgin is a virgin for the sole reason of being unable to find a mate. As well, I think that the American Public would be just as reticent voting for a single heterosexual.

#2a. No. A homosexual virgin who wants to participate in sexual activity but doesn't because he/she is conforming to conform is indeed a hypocrite.

Originally posted by semperfortis
As you can clearly see by the definition, everything you and I have been discussing is centered on and about the prejudice involved in NOT voting for, NOT supporting someone simply because of their sexual orientation.

Socratic Question #1
Are you saying that a vote against a Homosexual candidate is a vote for prejudice?

That is the problem I have with the use of the term prejudice. Using it as an imploration of guilt is just as much an avoidance of reality as the inverse.

We have established that people may not feel comfortable with humans who have a[different sexual orientation. Precisely based on how people were raised and taught. Family, as depicted by the mass media (especially during the holiday season) is a Male and Female with children.

That is how many people view the world, that is how many people propagate to their children what family and marriage is.

We as a society expect to see a man with another woman. We as are very socially minded people and expect that our sociality is reflected in the leaders that we choose.

My opponent presents the definition for prejudice...

1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.

Prejudice is not interacting with the information presented because of a pre-existing opinion that was based on reaction.

The vast majority of the public interact with any given candidate during the election process...using knowledge, thought and reason to determine their stance on the issues and their agreement with the stance of the candidate.

Therefore, I submit that the obstacle preventing a homosexual candidate is not solely prejudice.

It is a lack of public promotion of alternative lifestyles in the media that have allowed the requisite recognition, identification, and conscious interaction with the idea of a homosexual lifestyle.

That is changing. But just because Will and Grace was a very popular television show does not mean that the American population is ready for a homosexual leader.

We can toss back ideals all day long and state that, yes, wouldn't it be great if the public could just ditch their ignorant and reactive opinions over night and upon waking up in the morning we could all hold hands and give praise to our new found enlightenment.

But that is not addressing exactly what reality is.

Originally posted by semperfortis
And yet an African American nobody Senator from Illinois is the presumptive democrat candidate for president.

That above all things proves my side of the debate.

No, it doesn't prove your side of the debate.

Obama represents a minority group that has gone through years and years of effort and social integration in every facet of our society to get America to the point of being ready for to follow their lead. Their are countless examples of strong Black Americans who have led America and its' perspectives.

Over decades.

The homosexual community is currently still attempting to gain the right of marriage in all fifty states.

Prior to the public and social definition of marriage and family can change, the legal definition must change.

And that battle is far from over despite the California victory. From my opponent's own link:

Thirty-nine states already prohibit gay and lesbian couples from marrying with laws modeled after the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Passed by Congress in 1996, the federal DOMA bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages and allows states to ignore gay marriages performed elsewhere. Four states (Maryland, New Hampshire, Wisconsin and Wyoming) have laws or court rulings prohibiting same-sex marriage that predate the federal DOMA. My Emphasis[1]

I recommend that the reader go through the 50 state round up and see the legislation that my opponent has stated many states are in the process of;

Originally posted by semperfortis
The facts are, as usual, not even close to being that simple. If you read here: 50 State Rundown on Same Sex Marriage Laws, you will see that MANY states are currently in the process of legislation.

;

What kind of legislation?

Most states have been presented with proposed bans on same-sex marriage. Many have been voted down...but that does not necessitate that same sex marriage is legally recognized. And the only 'legislation' that is being presented is mostly in the form of a lawsuit...which doesn't necessitate a public recognition of the need for fairness and acceptance of all lifestyles, rather it is an attempt to force the law to conform to the need of alternative lifestyles...which is only really experienced by those who presented the lawsuit.

A public embracing of the gay lifestyle has not and is not currently under way. Rather, it is a constant give and take and the end product will be that of a public acceptance. But not for a very long time...not until the public is conditioned to be more open minded.

Context. My opponent has done a very apt job at presenting information and citing the idealistic inclination in all of us that things are changing and that the nation is ready for a minority lifestyle to represent the majority.

We do indeed have an African American candidate this year. But he still holds to the traditional American values. He does not represent an alternative lifestyle.

Originally posted by semperfortis
He was NOT impeached for his sexual antics, or for any reason other than Lying Under Oath to Federal Investigators.

And the fact of the matter is that Clinton's deviance from the widely held American conception of a monagomous male/female relationship was one of, if not the most talked about aspects of his administration, suggesting that the popular opinion regarding the sexual lives of its' leader is very important...unfortunate as it may be.

Originally posted by semperfortis
That popular opinion you are speaking of, is PREJUDICE by the way. I fail to understand your aversion to the term prejudice.

Because of your use of the term and how it isn't inclusive of anything more than a connotation. Stating that a person is bad for not voting in a homosexual President isn't what this debate is about. It's about the reasons for these prejudices...and how and what can change, and how fast, to overcome these prejudices.

I am not in this debate to toss the term 'prejudice' around.

And I contend that prejudice against the Homosexual lifestyle is not the only obstacle.

Originally posted by semperfortis in answer to Socratic Question #1
Answer:

Yes

Prove it.

Originally posted by semperfortis in answer to Socratic Question #4
Answer:
Ability and popularity.
We have seen the same trends in the past. Some last, others don’t. Just Politics… My Emphasis

Socratic Question #2
So are you stating that their popularity, which can be due in part to the traditional values upheld by each in their campaigns, is the reason why the public selects their President?

Originally posted by semperfortis
While my opponent continues to ignore, deflect and redefine prejudice, I will present to you more compelling evidence that an outspoken homosexual will in fact be a viable presidential candidate with the next 25 years.

When?

My opponent has done a very good job of establishing the fact that prejudice is a factor in this debate. But he has done close to nothing in showing that the perception of the public is even remotely close to accepting a homosexual President.

He has provided an unsupported link in order to demonstrate that Homosexuals have the capacity to lead...I will agree right now that some homosexuals are capable of leading a nation. That is not the debate. The debate is centered on the American public and their willingness to be as mature about the situation as my opponent and I are.

The debate hinges on what we present on the American public. And I have shown...using my opponents own link that the battle is currently being waged in the courtrooms...a process that can take many, many years. Only until it is legally established that their is nothing wrong with same sex marriage will the American Public follow suit.

Until that happens, we can not realistically expect a person of an alternative sexual orientation to be voted into the most visible position of power in the world anytime soon...and twenty five years is a not that long of a time in the Bible Belt.

Socratic Question #3
Are there currently any political figures who identify with the gay community who have a viable chance to win a Democratic or Republican nomination in the next election (2012)?

Challenge Match

Semperfortis vs MemoryShock

"In the next 25 years, a proclaimed homosexual will be elected President of the United States".

Semper’s Closing:

Acknowledgement:

And another debate comes to a close. I find myself regretting the closing statements in my debates as it means the end to an exciting and challenging contest. My opponent, MemoryShock, is without a doubt one of the finest minds and most accomplished debaters to be found anywhere and I feel honored to be able to stand with him in contention on a topic.
It should also be noted that the debate forum here on ATS is growing and I believe that one day, due to the efforts of members such as TheVagabong, Chissler, MemoryShock and our Champion Intrepid but to name a few, we will see this forum used to more closely examine controversial topics all across the spectrum.

Now on with my closing:

“A quick rebuttal”

Habit and Ignorance.

The foundational principles of prejudice that you seem reluctant to give name to.

Socratic Question #1
Are you saying that a vote against a Homosexual candidate is a vote for prejudice?

Answer:
No

I AM saying that a vote against a homosexual candidate for no other reason than sexual orientation, is indeed prejudice. I would have expected you to get that.

Family, as depicted by the mass media (especially during the holiday season) is a Male and Female with children.

Which like the majority of your argument, has nothing to do with politics. Our eyes are coming open as a nation, as a people, and we are more and more becoming comfortable with people that simply DO THE JOB regardless of their sexual preferences.

Remember the first Catholic President? JFK. They said he would never be elected, because he was Catholic.

Remember when an African American had no chance?

Remember when divorce meant no opportunity at the White House?

Remember when a woman had no chance?

It was only 27 years ago that we got our first woman Supreme Court Justice. Remember?

24 years ago, the first woman Vice President Candidate on a major party ticket. Remember?

Remember 16 years ago the first African American Woman was elected to the US Senate?

On and on and on goes the list of accomplishments by minorities within the past 25 years.

All of that has changed and proven to be minor obstacles for those that reach for the loftiest of goals. Those obstacles have been overcome, and well within 25 years, the obstacle of homosexuality will as well.

That is changing. But just because Will and Grace was a very popular television show does not mean that the American population is ready for a homosexual leader.

And yet a mere 25 years ago, a television show would not have dared show a naked body at anytime day or night. Now we have prime time programs routinely showing, for all practical purposes, full nudity. (Reference NYPD Blue, Chicago Hope and John Doe) We have moved on and moved past sexual stereotypes and in 25 years the fact a candidate is an outspoken homosexual will mean very little if they are capable of doing the job.

Nudity in American TV

No, it doesn't prove your side of the debate.

Obama represents a minority group

Oh my friend, but what you fail to understand is that we are debating 25 years here. NOW, we have a minority candidate. 25 years ago that would have been impossible and most would have scoffed at the idea.

25 years ago, we just started showing couples sharing a bad on your aforementioned TV.

25 years ago we were just into the first 20 years of the establishment of civil rights.

25 years ago, USA Today went international and we began the communications age.

Just 20 years ago, President Reagan passed the Civil Rights restoration act.

17 years ago, President Bush signs the Civil Rights Act of 1991.

Civil Rights Timeline

We have come so far in the past 25 years; it is impossible to think we can not overcome our fear and prejudice and consider a homosexual fit for the duty of President of this great nation.

As long as Blacks have fought for equal rights, there have also been homosexuals that have been denied civil liberties and all of that is changing as we begin to understand the true meanings of prejudice and equality.

The homosexual community is currently still attempting to gain the right of marriage in all fifty states.

Marriage is the topic for another debate my friend. The largest obstacle presently over homosexual marriage is simply the definition of marriage and that has nothing to do with this debate.

I have shown you where MANY states now recognize civil unions and equal rights under the law for homosexuals. That should be sufficient to substantiate that particular question in this debate. As the definition of “Marriage” could very well be religious in nature and not political as this debate defines the parameters.

I am not in this debate to toss the term 'prejudice' around.

Perhaps not my friend, but you have attempted to redefine it, deflect it and even ignore it. No matter how hard you have tried however, everything you have spoken of has in fact been prejudice in all of its many forms.

Prove it.

I did. Read the link.

Socratic Question #2
So are you stating that their popularity, which can be due in part to the traditional values upheld by each in their campaigns, is the reason why the public selects their President?

Answer:
While you will note that “ABILITY” was listed first, your ASSUMPTION that popularity is tied to traditional values is moot when considering the radical left wing stance of the current Democrat candidate. So the direct answer is … NO

When?

As stated, within the next 25 years.

Socratic Question #3
Are there currently any political figures who identify with the gay community who have a viable chance to win a Democratic or Republican nomination in the next election (2012)?

Answer:
Many.. Here is a short list.

Michael Huffington
Kate Brown
Mike Nelson
Tony Miller

Every bit as good a chance as an unknown Senator from Illinois

Yet would not a better question be:
Which political figure that identifies with the gay community has a chance in 2032?

That is a LONG WAY OFF and a lot WILL change as evidenced by the recent past.

Continuation:

25 years

6 election cycles

Currently a Minority Candidate for President

Current Elected Politicians that are outspokenly homosexual

A past history of successful homosexual leaders

Current legislation designed to eliminate any discrimination based on sexual orientation

More and more homosexuals understanding that they should not have to hide anymore

All of this adds up to a simple equation; that the premise of the debate is in fact correct. That within the next 25 years we will have an outspoken homosexual presidential candidate.


Through this debate I have shown you where homosexuals have successfully led countries.
I have given you the names of current successful homosexual politicians that continue to represent their constituents and are elected again and again.
Just as importantly I have shown you examples of sexual deviation from the “norm” practiced by former presidents that made no difference in their electability, popularity or effective ability.

Perhaps most important of all is the recent presumptive nomination of an African American candidate for President.

I have illustrated one of our most beloved Presidents and his sexual “misdeeds” that had no bearing on his popularity. (I dare say he could defeat either candidate this year)

Take all of this into consideration and you must conclude that a viable outspoken homosexual presidential candidate will come to pass within the next 25 years.

Thank you for your time and attention to this most important of topics.
I hope that as you read this, you open your mind and place any prejudices you may have aside. The world is moving past our antiquated notions of “normal” sexual behavior and into an era of enlightened acceptance and less rigid moral judgments.
This is as it should be and we here at ATS are without a doubt the forerunners of this enlightenment.

I will leave you with the words of the late, great Martin Luther King jr.

It is just as applicable to sexual orientation.

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

Thank you

Semper

Another debate indeed comes to a close and I would like to thank my my good friend semperfortis on yet another well fought debate. But...as I have made it a habit to disagree with him, I must even showcase my tendency in this regard as well...

Originally posted by semperfortis
*Snip*and I feel honored to be able to stand with him in contention on a topic.

No, semper...the honor is all mine...

And now, for my closing...

Originally posted by semperfortis
Which like the majority of your argument, has nothing to do with politics.

I disagree. Politics is public perception. Campaigns today many times are designed like Hollywood advertisements. The politician taking the photo op with the rosy cheeked child is an age old ploy to establish the image of a candidate an raise their public esteem. And the fact of the matter is that the age old image is an older, heterosexual white male who is already married...not waiting for the majority of the public to okay the option for marriage in court.

Originally posted by semperfortis
Our eyes are coming open as a nation, as a people, and we are more and more becoming comfortable with people that simply DO THE JOB regardless of their sexual preferences.

That's the idealistic perception that is propagated by everyone. I don't necessarily find an arguement with this statement...save for the fact that my opponent says it in various ways without providing any support. We have encountered no statistics, no social trends and no valid discourse on the status gay politics.

Rather, we have kind of bally-hooed about the term prejudice and how we shouldn't embody it as a personality trait. Okay.

Done. I can say "No prejudice" as well.

That doesn't bring a homosexual candidate closer to the White House. Not any time in the twenty five years. Not even close.

My opponent goes on to implore our memories regarding the 'first' in a slew of different minority classes.

For one...I don't remember. I look at history and read about how 175 years ago it was okay to hold possession over another human being. I read about how it was normal to use different water fountains based on color. I read how the female sex was not really granted the right to work until about fifty years ago; it was for some reason taboo.

I can't for the life of me grasp how society worked like that.

I don't see a problem with requesting advice from a female peer, or someone of a different 'race'.

That took generations to cultivate into the population and it is still a work in process.

As evidenced by the huge social issue that is same sex marriage.

If we are still, as a society, attempting to come to terms with how a gay individual leads their life, then how can we as a society band together and accept an alternative lifestyle President.

We can't yet.

But what we can do is continue to integrate awareness of their lifestyle into the consciousness of the American Public. What we can do is gradually include alternative lifestyles into the collective perception of our society.

When the American populace isn't concerned with the private life of a gay man or woman...then we can reasonably expect a gay President.

But that won't happen in the next twenty five years.

Originally posted by semperfortis in answer to Socratic Question #3

Answer:
Many.. Here is a short list.

Michael Huffington
Kate Brown
Mike Nelson
Tony Miller

Providing a list of names hardly answers the question. Why are these individuals viable candidates for a major party nomination?

I have attempted to focus this debate on the reasons for prejudice in the context of homosexuality in politics and the public eye. My opponent seems to be more concerned with an almost peripheral attention to the details of our reality.

Originally posted by semperfortis
Through this debate I have shown you where homosexuals have successfully led countries.

By providing a link that has absolutely no supporting data? A list of names is hardly showing anything.

My opponent has not provided anything substantial to support his side of the debate.

I have shown on multiple occassions that the status-quo defines how we as a society progress on the social issues. Change does happen, but slowly and definitively.

We may one day get to witness a gay American President.

But not within twenty five years.

We're off to the judges. I'll send some u2u's and we'll have some results asap.

Congrats to both competitors.

Results...

I've received the results from our three anonymous judges and will be posting some of their feedback shortly. But before we get into the nitty gritty of this debate, I think it is important to clarify a few points. A victory here for either side isn't to say what will or will not happen in the future, or what should or should not happen here in the future. As all of our astute debaters understand is that the winner here is declared for who presented the better argument, not who might be right or wrong.

With that said, I congratulate both competitors on a hard fought debate and one that I thought was definitely one of our better debates we have seen with this community. The subject matter was highly controversial and two of our best threw down for several rounds. The outcome... well let us get to that.

We had three judges.

Here is the comment from our first judge:

Final Judgment:

A Debate consists not only of refuting an opponents claims but also of building ones own case. semperfortis failed to build a compelling bigger picture time line on how exactly a homosexual would become president. I also found Memory Shocks debate uncharacteristically weak as I am not entirely convinced of his argument either. As the topic remains elusive to me I judge this debate to be a tie.

Second judge:

A good debate, well fought. I thought there was too much emphasis on "prejudice". The reader would know about this. Both fought well but semper had the hill to climb, tough end with the time constraint on the debate, 25 years. While both fought well semper missed some valid areas where he could have put this away.

I think if semper had focused on the advancement of women and other minorities in the past 25 years(statistically), he could have made a corrolation to homosexuals. THAT would have been major firepower. He used it as a footnote rather than a spearhead.

The winner is MemoryShock.

And our third judge:

This debate consisted of two powerhouses and I wasn't left overly satisfied.. but I thought it was well fought. I think the winner of this debate is clear, and took it from gate to gate. The losing participant here missed his mark on several occasions and seemed like he was trying to confuse the reader. At times unfounded insinuations were made, and when questioned on it.. little response was given.

On one occasion, semperfortis point blankly asked some questions regarding homosexuality and an active sex life, that I felt were already answered by MemoryShock. After MS answered them for the second time, semper still seemed elusive and failed to acknowledge what was being presented to him.

At the end of the day, MemoryShock is the victor and took it right from his opening post. Well fought debate on both sides, but MS takes this one by a hefty margin.

So two of three judges gives it to MemoryShock and the other felt it was a tie.

My hat is off to both of you.

Job well done.

My Hat is off to semperfortis...my friend...you are mighty.

Thanks to the readers, the judges and of course chissler for moderating this debate.

I WAS ROBBED!!!

ROBBED I TELL YA!!!!



MemoryShock YOU ARE GREAT!!!

CONGRATULATIONS

A hearty thank you to the judges, (who obviously hate me..:lol and hats off to Chissler..

Semper

Congratulations both.



[edit on 12-6-2008 by Skyfloating]