The Instigator
pricillaann
Pro (for)
Tied
24 Points
The Contender
buckaroo54
Con (against)
Tied
24 Points

Being a homosexual (practicing, or no) is not a choice.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/1/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,595 times Debate No: 1250
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (16)

 

pricillaann

Pro

First off, I'd like to leave the existence of God out of the debate. You may quote the Bible, or attempt you use it but keep in mind I think the Bible was a work of man, not a higher power (though I do believe in God, it's a different sort of God than many).

I recognize fully that homosexuality doesn't entirely make sense within the constraints of nature. To the very core, sex is for reproduction. Gay sex then would be "pointless". It would also be "unnatural". HOWEVER, besides the much stated examples of homosexuality in nature, humans are clearly much more complex than acting because of the very core-reason.

An argument that I have never seen is this: Yes, technically, boiling it down, homosexuality does not appear to be natural. What about hermaphrodites? Comparing that physical quality, it is different than what most of us know, therefore doesn't appear "natural" but it is! And to discriminate against someone born a hermaphrodite, I don't think would ever be encouraged. I'm a little skeptical to post this because I am NOT equating being a homosexual and a hermaphrodite. I am simply using it as a sexual connection between two things. Both arguably by some "unnatural", and yet should be accepted as the way that person is.

I am aware that there have been gay people that "change". Those people were probably never gay. I am also aware that many gay, or bisexual people, have been sexually abused. The fact is though, there is no way to tell if this is the origin (I think it's obvious it's not when gay people come from loving homes; there are so many that come from loving, safe homes that the occurrence of sexual abuse would just be stupendous).

The above-all argument for gay not being a choice. I am a woman, very, very straight. I appreciate feminine beauty, but I simply could not live my life with another woman, expecting her to be my partner. The thought does not appeal to me at all, I could not imagine it. Why is it not a choice for me? Why is it simply that I am attracted to men only, but all gay people apparently had this choice? Why do only some of us get a choice, then?

I've also heard that while a person MAY be attracted to the same sex, it is their duty to "fight the perversion". A person should live their life unhappily simply because others think it is wrong? What if a straight man lived in a society with a different religion where the norm was to marry a man? And that straight man HAD to date, settle down with another man and live their entire life like that? Should an entire life be given up to please others, when the gay person may know in their heart that they will be happy like this?

I just can't understand this country's obsession with homosexuals not being able to live their life the way they want to. Their love can't possibly hurt you. A straight person will never know what it's like to be gay, just like a gay will presumably never know what it's like to be straight. If you are a Christian that claims that you are attracted to the same sex but don't act on it through Gods love, I hate to break it to you but you're either gay or bisexual. So good luck. According to your rules, you'll know when you're "burning in hell"! (Christians are just so loving.)
buckaroo54

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for introducing this topic, and may it please the Chamber.

Because my opponent does not appear to be versed in specific argumentation techniques (e.g., Policy Debate, Lincoln-Douglas, etc.), I will present my arguments in common-case form. For the record, please understand that the arguments and evidence that I advance here in this debate do not necessarily reflect my own personal opinions.

I will first address her arguments before introducing my own into the round.

I will agree to withhold religious arguments from the debate, as my opponent requests in her first paragraph, so long as she stipulates the existence of religious arguments against her position.

My opponent's second paragraph goes entirely to support my position. Look at the following logical reasoning:
1. As my opponent concedes, homosexuality is not nature (that is, does not regularly occur in nature).
2. Humans possess greater cognitive skills than any other animal in the animal kingdom, allowing them the power of, inter alia, choice.
3. This power of choice allows humans to do things not natural to them.
4. Therefore, humans are able to choose whether or not to be homosexual.
Thus, the argument of my opponent actually supports the "Con" side of this debate.

My opponent next argues that, because hermaphrodites occur naturally, homosexuality should likewise be considered natural. There is a substantial difference, however, between hermaphroditism and homosexuality. A hermaphrodite is an individual who possesses both male and female genitalia, while a homosexual is a seemingly-normal individual who is attracted to members of the same sex. My opponent has demonstrated no relationship between these two factors, and this argument is, therefore, nontopical to today's debate.

My opponent's fourth argument is that gay people who convert back to heterosexuality probably were never gay. She also suggests that the origin of homosexuality is obscure, however she does imply that many homosexuals come from abusive households. Frankly, I don't understand the relevance of this contention. If my opponent can explain to me the topicality of this argument, then I will address it in my next constructive; otherwise, it should be excluded from the round.

Next, my opponent submits that she is not a homosexual, nor does she consider herself ever to possibly become a homosexual. "Why," she asks, "do only some of us get a choice...?" This, however, is a personal account. My opponent is uncomfortable practicing homosexuality just as other persons are uncomfortable expressing their personal opinions in public. Americans find it commonplace to eat beef, while Indians find it abhorrent. It is not plausible for my opponent to contend that just because she, or any person like her, finds herself unable to choose to be a homosexual, no person may choose to be a homosexual. This argument does not stand to reason.

My opponent's contention regarding an individual's duty to "fight the perversion" is not topical to this debate. She has challenged me to discuss whether or not homosexuality is a choice, not whether homosexuality is wrong. I refuse to debate this argument unless shown a reason to do so. I say the same to my opponent's last argument discussing "this country's obsession with homosexuals".

Finally, I have some trouble with the word "homosexuality". My opponent never discussed it in her case. Are we talking about gay sex? A gay lifestyle? Simply being attracted to individuals of the same sex? I will try to deliver my arguments in accordance with what I perceive to be homosexuality, but I would ask my opponent to clarify what exactly it is that we are debating here.

Having discussed my opponent's case that homosexuality is not a choice, I will now submit my own arguments that homosexuality is a choice.

My principal argument follows this logical reasoning:
1. Homosexuals have a choice in living their lifestyle - that is, whether or not they, inter alia, 'flaunt' their homosexuality.
2. Lifestyles of all individuals, homosexuals and heterosexuals alike, are constructed by choice.
3. Therefore, homosexuality is a choice.

First, homosexuals do have a choice in how to live their lifestyle. By this, I mean that individuals are able to choose how sexual their lifestyle is. Allow me to use an example. Let us discuss an individual who, for these purposes, I will refer to as "John". John is gay, but he is adamant about expounding his homosexuality. He has made sure that everyone knows he is gay, and frequently skews what individuals around him say into sexual comments. In short, he is an outspoken homosexual.

This describes the vast majority of homosexuals that I know, that many of my friends and coworkers know, and that many of you, the audience members and adjudicators, probably know. Am I saying that every homosexual acts this way? Of course not. Neither myself nor my opponent can debate truisms such as this, since if either of us find one exception to the other's argument, that argument would fall. Neither do I suggest that there is something inherently wrong with this, but I am rather insinuating that many homosexuals practice their sexual preference in this way.

This brings me to my second argument, that lifestyles such as this are a choice. An individual has a choice every morning when they decide what clothes to wear, where to go, and how to act in public, including what to say and do in general. An individual has a choice whether or not be polite and kind or rude and mean, and has an equal choice in whether or not to flaunt their sexuality. These choices tend to be decided based on who a person is - that is, a polite and kind person will not normally commit acts or rudeness or meanness, such as, e.g., thievery.

By extension, therefore, homosexuals have a choice here. It is not a mandatory facet of their convictions that they ensure everyone around them knows their preferences. Rather, this is done by choice.

I hope that I have clearly conveyed my arguments (it is rather early in the morning as I am finishing this up). Again, I would like to reiterate that the arguments I have expressed here do not necessarily reflect my own personal opinions. Within the confines of this discussion, however, my opponent has failed to prove that homosexuality is not a choice, and I therefore urge a negative in this debate. I thank my opponent again for her participation, and look forward to the next round of debate.
Debate Round No. 1
pricillaann

Pro

You seem to have misunderstood much of what I said.

I noted that homosexuality does not entirely make sense, but then mentioned, "besides the much stated examples of homosexuality in nature." I omitted the facts because besides reading them constantly, they're in many other debates and I'd assumed them common sense by now. Homosexuality exists in nature. Some animals are purely homosexual. Some are bisexual. Either way, attempting to mate with the same sex is not only inherent in human beings. It DOES regularly occur in nature. I'm not quite sure how to cite sources in debates, and I'm sure I'll be going against whatever technique there is, but here is a website which reports several different species and their unique reasons for homosexual behavior: http://www.news-medical.net.... There are many others as well.

They report, "Lions are also homosexual. Male lions often band together with their brothers to lead the pride. To ensure loyalty, they strengthen the bonds by often having sex with each other," and, "We're talking about everything from mammals to crabs and worms. The actual number is of course much higher. Among some animals homosexual behaviour is rare, some having sex with the same gender only a part of their life, while other animals, such as the dwarf chimpanzee, homosexuality is practiced throughout their lives."

You misinterpreted what I said. I meant that logically, thinking about the reasons for reproduction, gay sex has no place in mating at all. HOWEVER, people and animals are more than just robots designed to follow the constraints of their bodies, as nature and of course gay people today, have shown us.

Humans of course have greater cognitive skills. Humans can choose to do many harmful things, even though they are not at all natural. I am not talking about sexual acts. You mention later that I should've clarified, and I should have. I apologize. In the title, I put "practicing, or no" and by that I meant someone who may appear straight in their lifestyle, for example married with children but is gay (there have been many cases of this, married men coming out). Up until "coming out", gay people claim to have always been gay, but have acted in a straight lifestyle. I am not referring to when they begin ACTING gay, but their mindset their entire life (or up until they are sexually mature or whenever sexual orientation actually kicks in).

I probably shouldn't have presented the hermaphrodite without explaining it further, or perhaps I cannot fully explain what is in my head, but it is not how you have taken it. My point was: things that are outside of the norm, outside of what nature provides us as a sort of model for what we should all be like, happen. Physical issues are proof that abnormalities as a whole are not a choice. So why, just because something internal is separate from the norm, does that automatically make it choice? This alone does not prove it, but I believe it adds to the long list of things that do. Things happen to people that do not fully make sense in nature, but they happen. The hard thing about sexual orientation is that it is just that. You cannot equate it to a physical thing, or a psychological disorder. It is its own category, and there are only three options, two being much debated about. There is hardly a comparison that can be made in this area. I'm getting as close as I can by saying other abnormalities that are instilled in a child since birth are not choice, and I believe that suggests homosexualty could easily be too.

My comments about gays converting and abuse were merely preemptive strikes to common arguments. If those aren't your arguments, then you're right, they are not relevant.

Your claim about a being "uncomfortable" seems invalid. I am not talking about homosexual acts. I am talking about the very notion of being attracted singularly, act excluded. I'm not uncomfortable with being attracted, I merely am not. This is a common thing I've heard, straight people saying they could not be gay (anyone can commit a gay act, that is not what I'm referring to). Your examples are choices. Simply listing choices alongside being gay does not make being gay a choice.

Clearly, you are correct in that anyone has a choice within their "lifestyle". Every single action is a choice. A gay person may live their whole life without committing a single gay act--they would still be gay. I am talking about the mind, about the inner attraction and desire to have sex with members of the same sex. NOT the act itself (though in many cases, that would of course be included). That sort of knocks off much of what you're saying, since you seem to be mentioning the lifestyle only.

You're right: we can't debate truisms such as that. Your description was lengthy and unneeded I believe. I do want to point out that while many homosexuals present themselves in that way, the much more populous straights also has an array of sexually-rambunctious and obnoxious people. This has nothing to do with the sexual orientation.

I understand that an individual chooses whether or not to have sex with someone of the same sex. What I am arguing is that, if I were put in the position where I was forced to do so (a strange one, I do not think I will ever find myself in), it would be possible, yes, but it would not be the same thing as having sex with my husband. It would not be even close because I would not be sexually attracted or appealed or gratified in any way because that sex is not the sex I am attracted to or desire. This argument I have also heard from many many other people and I think you would be hard-pressed to find a straight person that claims to desire gay sex without considering themselves gay.

I am also severely confused as to why you recognize that we cannot argue about truisms, and yet you continue to talk about the "gay lifestyle" in terms of the stereotypical flamboyant gay, right down to the very end. If you really must push it that hard, then you should know that the majority of gays I know would probably not be portrayed as gay by the common onlooker because they are simply men with a sexual orientation that isn't explicit by there outward appearance. There are flamboyant gays, there are flamboyant straights. Straight people can be just as sexually out-there, but the much higher population waters them down and for some reason gays are pinpointed. Simply because celebrities are in the open eye, I'd like to point out that a number of them appear as normal, maybe even "straight" people and yet are gay. This is certainly all opinion, but seeing as you've turned the whole second half of your argument into arguing against a stereotypical gay lifestyle, I believe it somewhat relevant.

A lifestyle for anyone is a choice. A straight person can be sexually promiscuous, rambunctious, etc. So can a gay person. People are capable of this. A straight person can have sex with the same sex. Gay people can have sex with the opposite. Again, I am not talking about actions. I am talking about the desire, the very thing that makes me want to get married and have sex with men, the very thing that makes so many people desire relationships, except with the same sex. So far, nothing has been said to prove that this desire is a choice. It's only been argued that people can choose how to portray themselves and choose their daily actions. I already knew that.
buckaroo54

Con

I would like to thank my opponent for her response, and may it please the Chamber.

I would also like to thank her for her politeness during the course of this debate. This is a very sensitive subject to many, and I appreciate that she has not taken many of my arguments as personal attacks against her or her beliefs (which my arguments are not).

I will respond to the arguments in my opponent's second constructive, and introduce my own arguments and evidence as necessary.

My opponent first counters that homosexuality does occur in nature. She cites an article published in Medical Science News on October 23, 2006 entitled "1,500 animals species practice homosexuality" (available: http://www.news-medical.net...) that discusses the prevalence of homosexuality in nature. She discusses the particular example of male lions having sex with one another in order to ensure loyalty.

This, however, is evidence only of homosexual behavior, not of homosexuality as a practice. I turn to two separate studies, both available in Luiz S�rgio Solimeo's article "The Animal Homosexuality Myth" (available: http://www.narth.com...). The first, from Simon LeVay's book Queer Science:

"Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity."

The second, from University of Navarre, Spain, Bioethics Professor Dr. Antonio Pardo's article ""Aspectos m�dicos de la homosexualidad" (trans: Medical Aspects of Homosexuality), appearing in Nuestro Tiempo (trans: Our Time) magazine:

"Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction."

Thus, my opponent has introduced evidence establishing that homosexual behavior occurs in nature, but not homosexuality as it is practiced among humans. The only explanation, therefore, can be that homosexuality is a choice made by man, who, because of his superiority over the animal kingdom, may make choices that go against nature.

My opponent's third paragraph concedes this point: "...people and animals are more than just robots designed to follow the constraints of their bodies..." The "constraints of their bodies" that she refers to is homosexuality. If people and animals are constrained to only be attracted to members of the opposite sex, then it must be a choice made against nature to be homosexual.

In my previous constructive, I asked my opponent to clarify her definition of homosexuality. She defines it as the 'homosexual mindset', and I understand much better now the reasoning of her arguments. I thank her for clarifying that point.

My opponent also rewords her 'hermaphrodite' argument, which I believe I also understand much better now (I do appreciate that debating online, without speaking to one another directly, can complicate the discussion process). She contends that simply because something goes against nature or the norm does not automatically make it a choice. This argument, however, assumes that what is "natural" and what is "normal" are the same thing. Being a hermaphrodite certainly is not normal; the vast majority of individuals have either male or female genitalia. It is however, natural. No external interference is required in order to produce a hermaphrodite. There are various causes for hermaphroditism, which are described in Wikipedia's article on "Intersexuality" (available: http://en.wikipedia.org...), all of which occur naturally. We can conclude, therefore, that hermaphroditism is natural, just as is homosexual behavior. However, homosexuality - the 'gay mindset' - is not natural, and can only be achieved, therefore, by choice.

My opponent dismisses my "lifestyle" argument by reminding me of her redefinition of homosexuality as the 'gay mindset', and not necessarily the 'gay lifestyle'. I will not refute that contention; I introduced the 'lifestyle' argument under my understanding of her definition of "homosexuality". I see now that understanding was wrong.

My opponent says: "...I think you would be hard-pressed to find a straight person that claims to desire gay sex without considering themselves gay." It is actually not as hard as one would think. An August 3, 2003 New York Times article entitled "Double Lives On The Down Low" by Benoit Denizet-Lewis (available: http://query.nytimes.com...) discusses a culture predominant mostly among African-Americans called the "down -low", in which African-American men lead normal lives with wives and children, but enjoy sex with men. These men, however, do not consider themselves to be homosexual. What distinguishes gay men from men on the down-low is their choice to accept the homosexual mind frame. The fact that my opponent is unable to personally find herself able to choose to be a homosexual is a personal opinion, but that does not mean that others are not able to make the same choice.

I believe I miscommunicated my argument regarding the 'gay lifestyle'. First off, I was confused by my opponent's interpretation of "homosexuality". My argument, therefore, may not be topical given her definition. Secondly, it is difficult for me to prove that someone has a homosexual mindset without some evidence of that mindset. The best way to prove that mindset is by proving their lifestyle. An individual's choice in lifestyle is an indication of their choice in mindset. If an individual chooses to vote Republican, for example, it is indicative of their choice in beliefs (whatever Republican believes those may be). Likewise, if an individual chooses to live a homosexual lifestyle, it is indicative of their choice to be homosexual.

As in my last constructive, I would like to reiterate that the arguments I have expressed here do not necessarily reflect my own personal opinions. Within the confines of this discussion, however, my opponent has again failed to prove that homosexuality is not a choice, and I therefore urge a negative in this debate. I thank my opponent again for her participation, and look forward to the final round of debate.

I would, however, ask her to please refrain from introducing new arguments in her final constructive. That is not to say that she may not refute arguments using new lines of reasoning, but rather that she should not submit an entirely new argument that has no basis in any of the prior constructive submissions. I would instead ask that our final constructives focus on summarizing the main arguments in the round for the voters at the end of the debate.
Debate Round No. 2
pricillaann

Pro

pricillaann forfeited this round.
buckaroo54

Con

This round was forfeited because "pricillaann" did not post their argument within the allotted time.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by JackBauerPower 9 years ago
JackBauerPower
The debate on what causes homosexuality is not as black and white as to say that its either ones choice or not. It is certainly a combination of a lot of things including biology and personal preference.
Posted by Robert_Lee_Hotchkiss 9 years ago
Robert_Lee_Hotchkiss
I think it is important for make the point that the gay community is hardly monolithic. When I was in New Orleans some 15 years ago their was a lesbian bar where the vast majority of patrons looked like a cross between Ms. Cleaver, Babara Bush, and Marge Simpson.

It is interesting to point out that gay marriage did come from the out and proud male gays but rather discrete lesbians who were mostly concerned providing a stable environment for their children.

Homosexuality as a behaviour is very broadly represented in the animal kingdom including humans. The reality is that the whole concept of sexuality as imagined by the Catholic church is as about far from reality as any argument can be. Far from being just for procreation sex has many uses in humans and other animal species.

Interestingly women generally only initiate sex during to ovulation but they have sex steadily throughout the menstrual cycle the other times sex is for strengthening the relationship as the church later has come around to.

you only have to look at dogs to see the various use of sex. Dogs often engage in homosexual activity to express dominance. Homo erotic imagery is common in the military and work situations. Bosses speak of themselves as studs and even more vulgar imagery.

I think this is source of much homophobia. I think many people who are afraid of homosexuals are afraid of being dominated by more dominant male.
Posted by JustCallMeTarzan 9 years ago
JustCallMeTarzan
I'm not sure where to vote on this - I think I'm going with Con because practicing homosexuality is clearly a choice. A little restraint would prevent homosexual acts, just as a little restraint would prevent heterosexual acts. Clearly a choice. As for BEING homosexual... that's still up in the air as far as I'm concerned. I simply don't know.
Posted by Leonitus_Trujillo 9 years ago
Leonitus_Trujillo
Firstly your using the movies to back up your twisted conclusion. "Hollywood backs me so I must be right, well technically they back up love but it should transfer to sex." Hollywood is more messed up than the modern liberal.

and your equating homosexuality to freedom of religion? WHAT????

The first goes against the goal of evolution and most religions including the dominant religion in the US Christianity. And the other is a constitutionally defend right that has existed since the creation of man (or since man evolved into its present form.)

One is logical the other is based purely on momentary pleasure.
Posted by pricillaann 9 years ago
pricillaann
Well, I do not think people living alone is wrong. However, I do think that most people desire companionship. My main opinion is that, if people are living a certain way and their actions are not hurting others directly, then they can do it. So if somebody would rather be alone, or if they would rather not act on their homosexuality and if that makes them happy, then they're not the sort of person I am trying to defend here.

Debates like this of any kind are hard because people are so different and it's hard to recognize what certain people feel like when we can't feel the same thing. This is the very reason I feel we should not criticize homosexuality. We should trust them. They are people, and most claim that it is NOT a choice. I almost equate it to freedom of religion. A person can live in a country and practive to be a certain religion all they want, but if they feel they are worshipping the wrong God, they probably will not be happy attending the wrong temple of worship. What if the country you live in (or anyone reading this) declared that your religion was now outlawed and would result in discrimination and punishment by law? There's a good chance you'd stop practicing in public, maybe even in the open eye if your friends and family were against it. But you'd still feel the same faith.

I feel that we can all recognize desires beyond our physical choice. The way so many romantic movies play off the fact that we cannot choose who we love. The beautiful girl falling in love with the unexpected man that her family doesn't like. I don't understand why everyone then can't consider and believe that this transfers onto sex as well.

If a man is attracted to other men but would rather be attracted to women, I would suggest he see a psychologist. Maybe he's just going through a rough time (people go through periods of homosexuality) or maybe he is denying what will actually make him happy. I say there are options and if he's unhappy, he still has a way to go.
Posted by Evan_MacIan 9 years ago
Evan_MacIan
Right, the "progressive," probably wasn't appropriate either. And the P.S. was in reference to this sentence:

"A person should live their life unhappily simply because others think it is wrong?"

There life is not necessarily going to be unhappy. Not everything revolves around sex.

And if a person with homosexual tendencies is trying to live a chaste life, then it is probably because THEY think it is wrong as well. You yourself have admitted that there are arguements against practicing homosexuality, and even if you don't buy them, that doesn't mean that others can't.
Posted by pricillaann 9 years ago
pricillaann
Evan__MacIan, I am assuming you are responding to me, yes?

My talk about Christians and the "going to hell" thing was probably not appropiate...there was another debate on here and the person claimed that they were attracted to men but since they didn't act on, they were okay, and also that their opponent was going to burn in hell. I've also heard that several other times, from numerous Christians that certain people supporting gays will burn in hell. I just think that ridiculous, but I shouldn't have stated it as such as I KNOW not all Christians are like that.

The P.S. confuses me completely. I'm unsure as to why you put progressive in quotes, as I don't think I've made that claim about myself anywhere, or ever. Also, why can't someone be alone and happy? I am terribly confused.

Was this even a response to me? The first two paragraphs certainly seem so, but that P.S. throws me off.

Oh, and to sethgecko13, these family members need not be homosexual. Asexuality exists too, right? Though I know it's not quite so common, that's what first popped in my head.
Posted by Evan_MacIan 9 years ago
Evan_MacIan
Interesting, but this is just a statement of your basic beliefs about homosexuality.

Oh, and your last three sentences are just stupid. Aren't Christians supposed to be the judgemental ones? I'm a Christian, and I'm actually a pretty reactionary one at that, and I don't believe that people who resist homosexual tendencies are going to hell.

P.S. Since in modern society, so many people are alone and unhappy, I would think, as "progressive" as you are, that you'd be a little more comfortable with someone trying to be alone and happy.
Posted by sethgecko13 9 years ago
sethgecko13
A suggestion:

Some biologists (Haldane, Smith) have put forth the theory that homosexuality does make sense in nature if one considers the comparative advantage of having homosexual family members that would, instead of seeking to procreate themselves, would help out with rearing the children of their siblings. Given that human beings (of all mammals) require perhaps the largest burden in terms of rearing - the evolutionary advantage of additional help with that burden makes good sense.

You can read more here:

http://en.wikipedia.org...
16 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Kals 9 years ago
Kals
pricillaannbuckaroo54Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by VoterBot 9 years ago
VoterBot
pricillaannbuckaroo54Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by kenito001 9 years ago
kenito001
pricillaannbuckaroo54Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by thisearthlyride 9 years ago
thisearthlyride
pricillaannbuckaroo54Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Keithinator 9 years ago
Keithinator
pricillaannbuckaroo54Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by U.S_Patriot 9 years ago
U.S_Patriot
pricillaannbuckaroo54Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Sludge 9 years ago
Sludge
pricillaannbuckaroo54Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Chob 9 years ago
Chob
pricillaannbuckaroo54Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by raptor10 9 years ago
raptor10
pricillaannbuckaroo54Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Zasch 9 years ago
Zasch
pricillaannbuckaroo54Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03