The Instigator
BlackHomophobicAtheists
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
YaHey
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

All homosexuals and bisexuals who live gay lifestyles are perverts

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
YaHey
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/19/2015 Category: Education
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 630 times Debate No: 81192
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (4)
Votes (1)

 

BlackHomophobicAtheists

Pro

Let's keep it simple. Just make your point and we will see who wins

Pervert -
1. Alter (something) from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended.
2. Person whose sexual behavior is regarded as abnormal and unacceptable.

The sexual anatomy of a male originally evolved biologically for sexual intercourse with a female. The intended purpose of having sexual organs and genitals is for reproduction and sex with the opposite sex

The sexual anatomy of a female originally evolved biologically for sexual intercourse with a male. The intended purpose of having sexual organs and genitals is for reproduction and sex with the opposite sex.

When humans don't use their sexual anatomy for the original, intended purpose, the human anatomy response negatively. This is why gays make up 81% of all new HIV cases and 90% of all new syphilis cases. 25% to 52% of lesbians are infected with bacteria vaginosis. Pregnancy and breastfeeding naturally reduces cancer so lesbians are at a higher risk of developing cancer.

All homosexuals and bisexuals are perverts
YaHey

Con

We're going to be using the second definition, correct? Because it seems like you are using the first, but the first definition is a verb, and humans can't be verbs. Maybe you meant "Perverters", but this should be clarified.

While male genitalia did evolve to mate with females, this does not mean that reproduction is the sole or even primary purpose of sex. I think we would be lying to ourselves if we said most people have sex with the intention of getting pregnant and having children. By this definition, those who use condoms, birth control, or have abortions are perverts, which is a stretch.

You go on to say that when humans use their sex anatomy for unintended purposes, our body reacts negatively. To prove this, you bring up statistics on AIDS. And yet, those who masturbate, on both sides of the sex binary, don't get any STDS, but aren't orgasm-ing for the kids, so to speak. You also say that 81% of new AIDS cases are from gay (presumably) men (actually, 63% of new infections are from gay men), but this ignores the 19% of straight people with the disease, who I would assume you don't consider perverts. If so, then a better premise would be, "Those who have sex without planning on reproducing are perverts". To believe anything else is inconsistent.

Then you say that lesbians are perverts for not breastfeeding, because women who breastfeed are less likely to get breast cancer. What about women who choose a career over a family? Or are women just incubators for the male seed? Are fertile women perverts as well? What about women too old to get pregnant? Are they also perverts?

Gay and lesbian people aren't "perverters" because they attempt to fulfill the point of sex: achieving orgasm. The second definition is rather subjective. What is abnormal and unacceptable in Alabama is very different than in Los Angeles.
Debate Round No. 1
BlackHomophobicAtheists

Pro

"We're going to be using the second definition, correct? Because it seems like you are using the first, but the first definition is a verb, and humans can't be verbs"

We will be using both definitions because even though humans are not verbs, homosexual behavior is an action. Therefore, the definition applies to homosexual behavior.

" this does not mean that reproduction is the sole or even primary purpose of sex"

This is a straw man fallacy. I clearly stated the sexual anatomy's original, evolutionary intended purpose is to have sex with the opposite sex and reproduce. You excluded the original, intended purpose in which is the meat and potatoes of my claim. You also excluded sex with the opposite sex.

"I think we would be lying to ourselves if we said most people have sex with the intention of getting pregnant and having children"

This is another straw man fallacy. You excluded 'sex with the opposite sex'. Again, you need to refer back to the definition of perversion. Remember? Alter from its original course. The sexual anatomy of humans evolved to have sex with opposite sex and/or reproduce

"And yet, those who masturbate, on both sides of the sex binary, don't get any STDS, but aren't orgasm-ing for the kids, so to speak"

This is a tu quo que fallacy. It doesn't change the fact that homosexuals are perverts according to the definition of pervert. Also, study shows masturbation has negative psychological effects such as societal anxiety, shame and guilt

"but this ignores the 19% of straight people with the disease, who I would assume you don't consider perverts"

First of all, it's not 19% of straight people with the disease. It's 19% of the HIV infections are heterosexuals. That very low considering heterosexuals make up 96% of the population. Gays make up 4% of the population but they are 81% of all new HIV infections. Those are epidemic proportions. When considering the population of each group, the percentage of heterosexuals with HIV is less than 1%.

"What about women who choose a career over a family? Or are women just incubators for the male seed? Are fertile women perverts as well? What about women too old to get pregnant? Are they also perverts?"

Again, this is a tu quo que falllacy. Fallacies don't win arguments and they are a form of deceit

Also, any woman who has sex with men only is not a pervert because she's not moving away from her sexual anatomy intended purpose. She's having sex with men. Also, most elderly heterosexual women fulfilled their sexual anatomy's intended purpose

"Gay and lesbian people aren't "perverters" because they attempt to fulfill the point of sex: achieving orgasm"

That's not true. You are disregarding the very definition of 'pervert'. The sexual anatomy of humans Evovled to have sex with the opposite sex. That is the evolutionary, original, biological intended purpose.
YaHey

Con

What? You say I'm straw manning you, but I don't think that phrase means what you think it means. One commits a straw man if they present the opponent's side in such a way that their argument is easier to defeat. Your claim was that genitalia exists to have sex and reproduce, and I disputed this claim. No matter how clearly you state this, it isn't true. How did I exclude sex with the opposite sex? I am saying that most sex isn't done with the goal of reproduction so to say that reproduction is the sole reason for sex is just plain dumb.

Nope, not a straw man. You said that people evolved sex organs to reproduce, which would be meaningless in this debate unless you mean to say that all sex should be to reproduce. If straight people have sex with goals other than reproducing, then they are on the same level as homosexuals and therefore perversion isn't exclusive to gay people. Or are you saying that the penis evolved to go into a vagina? I mean, sure, but it also goes into a hand, a mouth, and yeah I don't want to get too graphic with this. Same for a vagina, though. Sure, a penis fits, but so does a dildo, a finger, etc. Humans didn't evolve to have sex with the opposite sex, they evolved to have sex.

Masturbation has negative social effects: Oh, you mean a culture that shames masturbation as an evil act against god or the final act of desperation for lonely losers results in people feeling ashamed, or guilty? That's like saying homosexuality is bad because bullies bullied gay kids into committing suicide. Not their fault, dude. My point on the masturbation was that having sex without the goal of getting pregnant doesn't result in the body rejecting itself or whatever your point was.

Okay, again, gay people make up 63% of new infections, not 81%. In fact, 78% of those with HIV are gay so I don't know where this figure is coming from. But it doesn't matter. The point was that HIV isn't a point in your favor because straight people can get it as well, and apparently straight sex isn't a perversion. Not to mention how utterly insulting it is that you use a disease that killed so many and created such a culture of terror in an already unaccepted community to further discriminate and bash those said people. HIV is so prevalent in the gay community because gay men aren't often educated on safe sex procedures, at least 12% of those with the disease don't even know it, and because for some reason, it is more likely to affect gay people. But, did you know black gay men have it more as well? And that those who are 13-24 are also more likely to contract the disease? Are we to extrapolate upon this to say that 13-24 year olds are perverts, or that black people are as well?

My point in bringing up other people who commit these same acts is to point out that they aren't gay things, they're human things. To single out the gay community is discriminatory, dishonest, and somewhat ironically, sort of special pleading. 'There are rules,' you seem to say, 'but they don't apply to straight people. Of course humans have evolved to have sex for reproduction, but straights just have to reach the bare minimum. Homosexual people's bodies reject themselves and give themselves HIV and AIDS, but when straight people get the disease, it's a statistical error. Straight people fulfill their biological purpose by reaching orgasm, but homosexual people don't achieve this goal when they reach orgasm because they had either too many penises, or not enough.'

What about the clitoris? It purely exists to give pleasure. When two women have sex and they stimulate the clitoris, are they betraying nature? Or when a guy has sex with a girl but doesn't stimulate the clitoris, has he failed? Why do these rules only apply to gay people?

No, I didn't ignore the definition of pervert. I used it to show that gay people aren't perverts because they achieve a goal of sex. Who are you to say that, for instance, the penis isn't shaped to enter the back door? Or, yeah, not going to get graphic here. Here's the problem, "BlackHomophobicAtheists", you seem to ignore the fact that because gay people still exists today, they have evolved with straight people. The "gay trait" or whatever hasn't been ruled out of humanity. Unless you are saying that gay people choose to be gay, then they can't be acting out against their intended sexual purpose. It really all depends on where you draw the starting line. If you want to take this to its logical conclusion, then all life is perverted. Just think about it. The first "life" on earth was an RNA molecule, and was intended to be a self replicating molecule. But if you really want to follow this line, then everything is perverted. After all, the first purpose of matter was to exist in a condensed state at the beginning of the universe. Clothing is perverted; we were supposed to be naked.

Maybe you will say that this is the tu quoquo fallacy, but my point is simple: if you are going to use what you seem to believe is such a negative term for a group of people, then there should be something special about those people that makes them especially that thing over their opposite.
Debate Round No. 2
BlackHomophobicAtheists

Pro

Straw Manning is attacking a distorted version of the opponents' claim. You argued against a distorted version of my claim in which by definition is a straw man fallacy.

You distorted my argument by excluding an aspect of my argument.

You said,
"this does not mean that reproduction is the sole or even primary purpose of sex"

You excluded 'sex with the opposite sex' and just pretended that wasn't even a part of my argument to make it easier for yourself.

My point is, sex with the opposite sex AND/OR reproduction is the evolutionary, original intent for even having a sexual anatomy. Homosexual behavior by definition excludes sexual encounters among opposite sex couples. That alone means homosexuals are perverts according to the definition of 'pervert' because the evolutionary, original intent for even possessing a sexual anatomy is to have sex with the opposite sex and/or reproduce.

You said,

"If straight people have sex with goals other than to reproduce then they are on the same level as Homosexuals"

That's not true because heterosexuals are having sex with the opposite sex in which is the evolutionary, original intent for evolving a sexual anatomy. My point is, having sex with the opposite sex alone fullfills the evolutionary, original intent of even having a sexual anatomy. The human species will reproduce as long as humans are having sex with the opposite sex. I never said all humans reproduce or even plan to reproduce so you are spewing another straw man.

"but it also goes into a hand, a mouth, and yeah I don't want to get too graphic with this. Same for a vagina, though. Sure, a penis fits, but so does a dildo, a finger, etc. Humans didn't evolve to have sex with the opposite sex, they evolved to have sex"

It doesn't matter what the heterosexual's goal is. If the heterosexual is having sex with the opposite sex, he or she is fulfilling the evolutionary, original intent of even having a sexual anatomy. Some heterosexuals masturbation during the time between
having sex with the opposite sex. Therefore, we are still fullfilling the the original, evolutionary intent of having a sexual anatomy.

You fail to see that the sexual anatomy is a package. Heterosexuals who don't want to reproduce have to take extra precaution because the sexual anatomy evolved to lead to reproduction. Heterosexuals use their hand and mouth as foreplay but they still end up having penis/vagina sex in which means they are not perverts because they are fullfilling the evolutionary, original intent of having a sexual anatomy.

You said,
"Okay, again, gay people make up 63% of new infections, not 81%"

I meant, Gay males make up 81% of all new HIV cases among men. So the vast majority of new HIV cases among men are gay men even though gays are no more than 2% of the population . That's still extremely high considering they represent a very small population of males. That's actually pathetic

Here's a quote from DC

"In 2013, in the United States, gay and bisexual men accounted for 81% (30,689) of the 37,887 estimated HIV diagnoses among all males aged 13 years and older and 65% of the 47,352 estimated diagnoses among all persons receiving an HIV diagnosis that year"

"What about the clitoris? It purely exists to give pleasure. When two women have sex and they stimulate the clitoris, are they betraying nature? Or when a guy has sex with a girl but doesn't stimulate the clitoris, has he failed? Why do these rules only apply to gay people?"

This is ANOTHER straw man fallacy and a tu QuoQue fallacy...You are so busy straw manning, you forgot about my claim.

My claim is, all homosexuals and bisexuals are perverts according to the definition of 'pervert'....

If a man does not satisfy a woman, that does not make him a pervert because he is still fulfilling the evolutionary, original intent of having a sexual anatomy by having sex with the opposite sex.

You said,
"Gay people aren't perverts because they achieve a goal of sex. Who are you to say that, for instance, the penis isn't shaped to enter the back door?"

Achieving a sexual goal with the wrong sex is PERVERSION because its altering sex from its original course. The same sex is the wrong sex because having sex with the same sex is altering sex from its original course. Even if having sex with the opposite sex doesn't lead to reproduction, it's not altering sex from its original course.

In conclusion, my opponent used several fallacies. The meat and potatoes of his argument is a Tu QuoQue fallacy. He even attempts to normalize perversion by conveying that anything could be a perversion. Even if his claims were valid, it does not change the fact that the definition of pervert applies to homosexuals perfectly. He couldn't disprove my claim so he attempts to normalize perversion as an attempt to distort the very definition of perversion.

Pervert -
1. Alter (something) from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended.
2. Person whose sexual behavior is regarded as abnormal and unacceptable.

The penis evolveed in a way to where sperm is released from the penis. Unlike the anus, The vagina has
Natural cushion and moisture to accommodate penis insertion. There is even liquid in the vagina in which helps carry the sperm to the egg. When women ovulate, they give off a scent in which attracts men. Womens' voice pitch also raises to a higher pitch to attract men.

The sexual anatomy of a male originally evolved biologically for sexual intercourse with a female. The intended purpose of having sexual organs and genitals is for reproduction and sex with the opposite sex
YaHey

Con

Do you know what is really cute? People who just throw out the word fallacy without an understanding of the fallacies he is speaking about. I didn't straw man you, you failed to show that sexual relations between two heterosexual people without the goal of getting pregnant is somehow an exception so I ignored it. But hey, if it makes you feel all big inside, go ahead. /You go BlackHomophobeAtheists, you can now enter the toddler portion of debating! You're really moving on up in the ranks, aren't you? Next thing you know, you might be a part of the tater-tots division!/ (sarcasm).

Holy hotcakes, Batman. You say that sex evolved for reproduction but seem to also think that sex evolved to... happen. Duh. I mean, the clitoris doesn't exist to be stimulated by a man, it exists to be stimulated, period. The penis didn't just evolve to get the semen into the vagina, it also evolved to make that act pleasurable. So we have to evolutionary purposes. Sure, one homosexuality doesn't meet, but the other one does. Your claim that sex evolved purely for straight sex is a little odd considering that males can have their g spot in their anus.

And yes, there is a concerning number of gay AIDS carriers, but it's irrelevant to this debate because heterosexual people can contract it as well. This isn't the gay disease by any stretch of the imagination, so including it as evidence of the body rejecting their homosexuality is bizarre.

Oh wow, in calling my argument about the clitoris a strawman you seem to have straw manned me. You completely ignored the fact that the clitoris exists purely for sexual stimulation and lesbians achieve this goal when they have sex, or attempt to. This isn't me saying, "Well, straight people can be perverts too," it's me saying that here's distinct proof that lesbians aren't perverts when it comes to their sex lives. I also don't think that males are perverts when they fail. My point is that even when not achieving a goal, this doesn't make them perverts.

Let's say there are two round holes, or three, or even four. You have a cylinder which can functionally be put into any of these holes. The only difference is that one is a red hole, one a green, another a yellow, and finally a blue. You put your cylinder into any of these holes. The whole served its purpose as did the cylinder.

You seem to think that I am admitting that homosexuality is a perversion, but my defense is that everything is a perversion. This isn't what I am saying. My point was that your definition was too broad, too vague, and functionally useless, to the point where the majority of the universe can be classified a pervert. The only possible one that could apply exclusively to homosexuals is the second definition, which is too subjective and dependent on community to realistically have a debate around.

I think it is disingenuous for you to imply that you are only going for a technicality, where you seem to think that by a broad and ineffective definition homosexuality clarifies. You have to know that this isn't all there is though. There's a real, painful connotation to pervert that dehumanizes and illegitimatized a part of someone that is so crucial to their life. It is irresponsible to ignore the cultural perception of perversion and simply try to win through some appeal to definition.

To conclude, Pro never showed why only straight people can have casual sex and it be okay whereas gay people can do functionally the same thing and it be wrong. They didn't defend their definition or try to make it more precise, or even dispute my argument that showed that the first definition is insufficient. Also, there are purely sexual organs that don't play any role in reproduction besides stimulating during the act, which not all people can do. Under this definition, anyone who isn't constantly pushing out babies or impregnating women are perverts because they aren't performing their evolutionary goal to reproduce. Asexual people are perverts, old people are perverts, infertile people are perverts, etc.
Debate Round No. 3
4 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Posted by YaHey 1 year ago
YaHey
Ad hominem fallacy.
Posted by BlackHomophobicAtheists 1 year ago
BlackHomophobicAtheists
The one vote against me is probably a bias homo
Posted by BlackHomophobicAtheists 2 years ago
BlackHomophobicAtheists
Neoryan1,
I'm not nitpicking definitions. Unlike gays, I'm not a contortionist. In other words, I don't distort word definitions to benefit my own agenda. I'm simply showing that the definition of 'perverts' as is, applies to homosexuals perfectly.
Posted by neoryan1 2 years ago
neoryan1
If you're going to nitpick at defintions, and talk about philosophy, then perhaps philosophy would have been the best category. Because from what I'm seeing, you're seeming to stay put on the idea that "Gays and bisexuals are perverts" without going too much into the actual defintion you provided, which could be classified as nearly ANY action.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by republicofdhar 1 year ago
republicofdhar
BlackHomophobicAtheistsYaHeyTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made one or two weak arguments and plenty of assertions. Con's rebuttals to Pro's arguments were valid and not fallacious. Pro chose not to respond to these rebuttals by calling them straw man arguments. If Pro had taken a different route and focused on the word "regarded" in his definition, I think he would have presented a much more compelling case. Conduct is a tie because Con unfortunately degenerated to sarcasm as well. Nonetheless, this one goes to Con.