The Instigator
phasto86
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Mangani
Con (against)
Winning
41 Points

Calling homosexuality a perversion/dysfunction is equally valid as saying the same for heterosexuali

Do you like this debate?NoYes-2
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: 10/16/2008 Category: Science
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,225 times Debate No: 5731
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (7)
Votes (8)

 

phasto86

Pro

this is true

because a "straight" lady who experimented told me so
so this must be correct.. you know, since she was "straight" and unbiased
Mangani

Con

Thank you for posting this debate.

First of all, my opponent poses no argument. I will simply state that though homosexuality may not actually be a perversion or dysfunction (depending on who you ask), thinking so is a matter of personal opinion and belief, and may be based on scientific considerations. For example: one may take the scientifically strict position that sex is a function reserved strictly for reproduction, and the pleasure associated with sex is an evolutionary trait which ensures reproduction and continuation of the species. Homosexuality is a dysfunction of the pleasure function, which negates the scientifically essential result of reproduction due to sex amongst heterosexuals.

In order to imply that heterosexuality is a perversion or dysfunction, one would have to take an irrational approach to science, as well as morality, even if the morality of homosexuality is never brought into question. Science can prove it is perfectly natural that homosexuality exists, as well as heterosexuality, but the ultimate function- reproduction, is lacking in homosexuality and therefore "may" be labeled a dysfunction, while heterosexuality cannot using the same logic, or any other rational logic for that matter.
Debate Round No. 1
phasto86

Pro

yes, cancer, diabetes, priapism, Polydactyly are all natural
but by definition (lets take cancer) it is an ABNORMALITY, hence something must be amiss, thus a disorder
so cancer is a disorder when it is just as natural as being gay
_____________________________________
...back to our debate
she also said she has, not one, but TWO graduate degrees, AND she teaches 3rd graders
and because of this, she was able assure me that this notion (given in the title) is correct

let me try another approach:
there is no god (<<<--- not a possility, rather stated as fact)
because there is no god, we have no reason to continue to exist
since our existence is meaningless, we do not need to procreate
since we do not need to procreate, this surely means that given body part has no single use (example: no one can prove that the anus wasnt meant for sex, you know, because there is no god)
this also means that there is no natural order

because of this, being gay is equally as valid (even in the context of biology) as heterosexuality
Mangani

Con

My opponent has yet to present an argument... but let's play his game.

"yes, cancer, diabetes, priapism, Polydactyly are all natural
but by definition (lets take cancer) it is an ABNORMALITY, hence something must be amiss, thus a disorder
so cancer is a disorder when it is just as natural as being gay"

-I have no idea where this came from, and I doubt the readers will follow. Maybe I am intellectually inferior because I am black, or maybe my opponent is just not making his point clear. I have not stated homosexuality is abnormal, and that is irrelevant to the premise and my rebuttal in this debate. In fact I stated in my first argument that science can prove that homosexuality is perfectly "natural". To elaborate, it is not an anomaly that homosexuality occurs amongst normally heterosexual creatures.

"she also said she has, not one, but TWO graduate degrees, AND she teaches 3rd graders
and because of this, she was able assure me that this notion (given in the title) is correct"

-My opponent uses an invisible source whom he insists we must "believe" because of her invisible degrees and third party stance on the issue. Unfortunatel, my opponent has yet to pose an argument in support of "this notion", and simply stating "my teacher told me so" isn't sufficient to convince a kindergartener. So let's try his other approach...

"there is no god (<<<--- not a possility, rather stated as fact)"

-You don't know this as a fact, nor can you prove this. I would implore you to peruse my debates on this topic, which are much more scientific than your statement of "fact", which in fact is not a statement of fact rather a statement of opinion.

"because there is no god, we have no reason to continue to exist"

-My opponent does not provide a meaning of life to support this argument, no factual references to life needing a god to exist, nor any evidence that God doesn't exist in the first place. My opponent is just making statements, not arguments...

"since our existence is meaningless, we do not need to procreate"

-Ahhh, but my argument isn't based on the "need" to procreate, rather the scientific function of reproduction.

"since we do not need to procreate, this surely means that given body part has no single use"

-Not true at all. Without procreation there is not continuation of the species. God is a personal issue relating only to humans, but procreation relates to all animals. Even if we accepted your argument, due to biologically perfected pleasure receptors throughout our reproductive system, we would still procreate- even if all of us were bi-sexual because if the moral choice of sexuality is eliminated there would be no difference between having sex with a male and having sex with a female, and heterosexual copulation would occur at random. Eventually the procreators would outnumber the non-procreators, making this, again, a reproductive society based on who has the most children, the largest families... guess where we would end up? Exactly where we are now...

"(example: no one can prove that the anus wasnt meant for sex, you know, because there is no god)"

-Ummm... science can prove this. Though there are sensory organs within the anus that can cause "pleasure", scientifically they are intended to produce sensations within the muscles for bowel movements. The anus is the opposite end of the digestive tract from the mouth, and is known throughout the animal world as the excretion point of feces. This is not a sexual function. Amphibians, "reptiles" and birds use the same orifice for excreting liquid and solid wastes, and for copulation and egg-laying; this orifice is known as the cloaca. Monotreme mammals also have a cloaca, which is thought to be a feature inherited from the earliest amniotes via the therapsids. Marsupials have two nether orifices: one for excreting both solids and liquids; the other for reproduction, which appears as a vagina in females and a penis in males. Female placental mammals have completely separate orifices for defecation, urination and reproduction; males have one opening for defecation and another for both urination and reproduction, although the channels flowing to that orifice are almost completely separate. Therefore your assessment is irrational and unscientific.

"this also means that there is no natural order"

-This isn't a debate about anarchism in nature, nor anything other than the premise.

Perversion is a concept describing those types of human behavior that are perceived to be a serious deviation from what is considered to be orthodox or normal. Although it can refer to varying forms of deviation, it is most often used to describe sexual behaviors that are seen as abnormal or excessive.

Dysfunction is abnormal or unhealthy interpersonal behavior or interaction within a group.

Though arguments can be rationally made that homosexuality is a perversion or a dysfunction, the same arguments cannot be rational for what is societally accepted as normal by all. Even if you do not prescribe to the belief that homosexuality is a perversion or a dysfunction, as I do not, it can still be accepted as a rational argument when considering the basic scientific function of the reproductive system.
Debate Round No. 2
phasto86

Pro

you stated being gay is natural, meaning it occurs naturally, meaning it is not man-made

the same can be said about cancer, etc.
but by definition, it (cancer) is an abnormality
this was just a fun fact to point out (which is why i tried to divide that part from any "argument" i was going to present)

...anyways, as stated in the comment section, these arguments i've made came from other people. I can neither accept, nor defend such a fallacy : "Calling homosexuality a perversion/dysfunction is equally valid as saying the same for heterosexuality" since it does not have any basis on reality

i doft my hat to you sir, you won the debate the moment i posted it
Mangani

Con

Again, my opponent has presented no argument. He has also conceded this debate.

In closing I would just like to state that this debate was not about whether or not homosexuality occurs in nature- that is a point that I made. The debate was about whether or not arguments for homosexuality being a perversion or dysfunction are equally valid as arguments stating the same for heterosexuality. I believe I have made arguments that defend my position, and my opponent has presented none whatsoever defending his.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
"I'm sorry but playing the race card, I view is bad conduct. Pro (even though he is joshandr30) did not pick out someones race and make a comment. Therefore this retaliation was unnecessary and to an extent, rude."

-This was in reference to a different debate in which Pro implied that blacks are intellectually inferior to whites because Africa is full of third world countries while Europe is full of developing countries.

"However Con did not have great arguments, she forgot to bring up the fact that since evolution (being assumed true) dictates that the primary objective of a race its to produce(countless examples in evolution), body parts do have meaning."

-This is from the debate: "one may take the scientifically strict position that sex is a function reserved strictly for reproduction, and the pleasure associated with sex is an evolutionary trait which ensures reproduction and continuation of the species."

"Furthermore she could have stated that having sex through the anus does not produce children wheras the heterosexual way produces children. This would have voided the God is real/fake diversion."
-Also from the debate: Homosexuality is a dysfunction of the pleasure function, which negates the scientifically essential result of reproduction due to sex amongst heterosexuals.

I don't doubt you are educated, Scissorhands, and you must know that "reproduction" is the scientific term for "producing children".
Posted by scissorhands7 8 years ago
scissorhands7
Reliable Sources: Addtionally I will be awarding a tie, since neither debater used sources to back up their opinions.
Posted by scissorhands7 8 years ago
scissorhands7
Pro conceded, all points to Con except conduct.

"Maybe I am intellectually inferior because I am black"

I'm sorry but playing the race card, I view is bad conduct. Pro (even though he is joshandr30) did not pick out someones race and make a comment. Therefore this retaliation was unnecessary and to an extent, rude.

However Con did not have great arguments, she forgot to bring up the fact that since evolution (being assumed true) dictates that the primary objective of a race its to produce(countless examples in evolution), body parts do have meaning. Furthermore she could have stated that having sex through the anus does not produce children wheras the heterosexual way produces children. This would have voided the God is real/fake diversion.

Since Pro conceded I award points to Con. However if Pro had not conceded in the last round, in my opinion Pro (though offering as little evidence as he did) would have won points for the most convincing arguments.

Even though the pro in this debate was joshandr30 and noting the recent vote bombings he has committed against me, I will vote objectively on his debate.

Overall a easy victory for Con because pro conceded.
Posted by Lightkeeper 8 years ago
Lightkeeper
Pro conceded, all points to Con.

I would love to meet the lady though. We'll sit in a restaurant, drink red wine and compare our degrees. It helps that she's straight.

One thing Pro did get right is his conention about purpose. If there is no god (and assuming evolution), there is no such thing as purpose. The anus (or any other body part) is what we're born with and we use it for whatever purposes we do. We must remember that we are simply a RESULT of evolution and not a MEANS to anything. We have evolved the way we did because less favorable traits have been eliminated in the process. This does not lead to a purpose. While it may be true that the anus should be used for a particular purpose (to do #2 with) if we are to ensure the survival of the organism and potentially its genotype, there exists no reason whatsoever for any contention that an organism's purpose is its survival. Purpose is a word that can only be used in the context of some kind of intelligent design.
Posted by LR4N6FTW4EVA 8 years ago
LR4N6FTW4EVA
"she also said she has, not one, but TWO graduate degrees, AND she teaches 3rd graders
and because of this, she was able assure me that this notion (given in the title) is correct"

argumentum ad vericundum FTL.
Posted by phasto86 8 years ago
phasto86
cancer - malignant growth or tumor caused by abnormal and uncontrolled cell division; it may spread to other parts of the body through the lymphatic system or the blood stream
Posted by phasto86 8 years ago
phasto86
no comments eh?

i figure mangani realizes that i have taken statements from homo/bi/closeted people and used them as a basis for my arguements

can anyone logically defend a flawed argument/statement?
i for one cannot
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by NYCDiesel 7 years ago
NYCDiesel
phasto86ManganiTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Xer 7 years ago
Xer
phasto86ManganiTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Vote Placed by Procrastarian 7 years ago
Procrastarian
phasto86ManganiTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by steelman 8 years ago
steelman
phasto86ManganiTied
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 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 JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
phasto86ManganiTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:05 
Vote Placed by lenorenomore 8 years ago
lenorenomore
phasto86ManganiTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by KRFournier 8 years ago
KRFournier
phasto86ManganiTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 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:05 
Vote Placed by Mangani 8 years ago
Mangani
phasto86ManganiTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07