The Instigator
Pro (for)
The Contender
Con (against)

Being Gay is Not O.K.

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  
Debate Round Forfeited
Killerchicken12 has forfeited round #3.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
Voting Style: Open Point System: Select Winner
Started: 12/2/2016 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 569 times Debate No: 97558
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (7)
Votes (0)




Being Gay is Morally incorrect, and is in it's essencse debaucherous and unhealthy.

First Round:

Second Round:
Opening Statements (Do not touch on the opposing argument yet)

Third Round:
Rebuttal (Rebut each-others opening statements)

Fourth Round:
Crossfire and Final statements (Answer any questions brought up by the rebuttal, and get in your last words)

The Burden of proving the benefit of the doubt in this situation is on myself, and therefore I will make the first argument, and Con wilkl have the last say.

Religious points, and Scientific points may be made. Morality is also acceptable if you can explain why this is wrong or right definitively, as in the absence of Religion, there is no set morality standard.


Being gay does not determine someone's morality. It is our actions with intent that decide who we are. Tell me, how are you not as immoral as them? When do we find the morality that sets us free?

Thank you
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you, Con for accepting the argument.

Posting a previous debate as an argument is against the code of conduct, I do believe. If you do not want to debate by my terms, simply do not debate. But seeing that you have accepted, I will make my opening remarks.

Morality: principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

Morality is a Social, and religious construct determining what is right from wrong based on particular outcomes. If a certain action is destructive, it will more often than not be deemed "immoral in a society". For example, The Bible says nothing of vandalizing public property, but as it is destructive, it is hence viewed as immoral.

Though, Ignoring the Religious aspect of morality, we can find plenty of evidence that being Homosexual is in fact destructive and harmful to his/her sexual "Partner".

According to the Center for Disease Control, Homosexual men are 50 times more likely to get AIDS.
Also according to the Center for Disease Control, 1/6 Homosexual men in their lifetimes will be diagnosed with HIV, which has decreased nation wide by 19%, but at the same time has seen a 6% increase with Homosexual "couples".

According to the standards of society, this is a public health crisis, not a campaign for Human Rights.
This is proven correct after examining the fact that (according to nichd) nearly 50,000 people are infected with a sexual disease each year. That is approximately One out of every Eight Americans currently infected. Also according to, there are annually 12,333-15,000 Deaths related to sexually transmitted diseases per year, 82% of which (according to the CDC) were Homosexual, and the remainder amount was largely made up of prostitution, and out-of-marriage affairs.

Additionally, According to Bell and Weinburg (Page 308), 83% of Homosexual men claim to have had more than 50 Partners in their lifetimes, half of them being strangers. Among homosexual males in their current relationship, 4.5% reported sexual fidelity. (Sources:Laumann, The Social Organization of Sexuality, 216; McWhirter and Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (1984): 252-253; Wiederman, "Extramarital Sex," 170. This is extracted from

Con will have the Burden of proving why it is not immoral to spread an epidemic for personal pleasure, why it is morally O.K. to have more than 1 sex partner, and why practicing unsafe habits could be considered by society to be moral.

Moving on to personal experience, My own siblings are Gay, and I have seen them go from Heterosexual to Homosexual, and back again in one occasion. Scientifically, no substantial proof has been found to say that a child could be born Gay. Therefore unless Con can beyond reasonable doubt (Supported by scientific evidence) prove that an individual is born Gay, the notion that "Gay Rights" is "Human Rights" is irrelevant.



you are right, i didn't follow the code of conduct of this debate, my reason for doing so is that I have absolute truth and I decided to put it out into the open. Keep in mind, I don't debate to win, I debate for truth. Your argument is a great one to why we should a condom. Do you happen to know the statistics of protected homosexual sex? Your also creating a decent argument of why only woman should be gay. I still disagree wholeheartedly for logical reasons, but your statistics only imply that.

In my opinion, you have technically accepted my argumental position thus making this a true debate. Now because that's just my opinion and I fully intend to crush your ego, in order for me to proceed, You must absolutely consent that your original rules no longer applies. Now my argument for being morally superior to you is finding an objective non-religious form of Morality, again sourced below. if its not objective or has religious subtext to, then prove that theorem wrong. Because I am morally superior to you based on my theorem, I say being gay is ok. You want me to explain why, then consent that you can lose. We'll see if your brave enough to accept. Oh by the way, my goal is not to save the US, but the entire world. The US' survival is dependent on that, so I'm starting with this country. And I will prove that you do not have this country's best interest at heart.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 4
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Sidex 1 year ago
Oh wait, what if I argue that my previous arguments are my sources? They were never proven wrong so I can continue to build implication after implication?
Posted by Sidex 1 year ago
Thanks Jon i appreciate that, i didn't know that.
Posted by jddux 1 year ago
This is very easy to argue.... not that anyone should have to but it can be ended in one sentence..

Being gay is not a choice, morality requires choices, being gay therefore is not immoral.
Posted by Jonbonbon 1 year ago
Hey, Sidex, posting another debate as your argument is a breach of the character limit. I know you're new here, but that's usually considered a conduct violation. Just letting you know.
Posted by Sidex 1 year ago
Its like your really smart, but you just reached to the wrong conclusions. I thought you racist biggots were pretty stupid, you proved me wrong on that. thanks for the insight man
Posted by Sidex 1 year ago
Dude are you really that hateful? How did you get like that?
Posted by sboss18 1 year ago
"in the absence of Religion, there is no set morality standard."
Yeahhhhh, I was so close to hitting "accept," but that last statement is wrong.
This debate has 2 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.