The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
18 Points

Gay marriage,right or wrong?

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 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/10/2014 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 969 times Debate No: 58782
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)




When someone can explain to me how homosexuality is anything other than a psycho-social disorder, in a verifiable way(that means back your claims with evidence) I will be glad to concede that the oxymoronic debate over "gay marriage"is a valid one.


The right to engage in a relationship with another person is fundamental to the human condition. Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood." []
Furthermore, Article 2 of the same declaration demands "[e]veryone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind..."

Some claim that the institution of marriage is antiquated and obsolete. While this may be true for some, we are not arguing the validity of marriage itself. We are arguing whether it is a right that should be afforded to all people, which I will contend it should. You have asked me to demonstrate that homosexuality is not a psycho-social disorder. I do not hold the burden of proof, you do, in order to support your claim that homosexuality is a psycho-social disorder. However, despite the reversal of this burden, I can demonstrate empirically that this is not the case, which I intend to do, supported by current research. In addition to this, I will make appeals to logic, reason and morality to demonstrate that not only is homosexuality a function of biology, but that even if it were a choice, society would not be justified in refusing rights to a group of people when they are afforded to another, with no substantive reason.

Psycho-social disorder: "mental illness caused or influenced by life experiences, as well as maladjusted cognitive and behavioral processes." [].

This is an inappropriate term to use for homosexuals, because it is not only degrading to them, but is also medically inaccurate and reduces the appreciation of these disorders in actual patients through misuse of the term.

Firstly, we have known for more than 20 years that there is an x-chromosome linkage which is associated with homosexuality []. Initially, this indicated that homosexuality is at least partially inherited from the mother's side. This is not so much a "gene for being homosexual", as a "gene for liking men", because females with this gene tend to create more progeny and start having children earlier. It also has a strong positive correlation in homosexuality. The region of the x-chromosome is Xq28, although it is not currently well understood where in the region or what the precise mechanism of action for this gene region is. The study was conducted in 1993, and since then, technological and scientific advancement have given rise to the ability to study the effects more carefully. A more recent study not only confirmed the old study's findings, but discovered an additional string on chromosome 8 which seems to have an effect on sexual orientation []. The markers used to identify those genes came from markers found in the Human Genome Project, contrary to your statement in the comments section. So, there is no single "gay gene". Instead, there are a variety of genetic influences, which when pared with other biological conditions (such as prenatal hormone exposure, etc) lead to the influence of a person's sexual orientation. Now, given that the preponderance of the scientific evidence is to suggest that homosexuality is a biological trait, much the same way as eye or hair colour is a trait of one's biology and a complex interaction of a variety of alleles and environmental influences, it is absolutely not demonstrable that homosexuality is a "psycho-social disorder".

The problem, then, is determining where in the evolutionary process these two currently identified genetic factors were favourable and led to selective advantage. Without desperately feeling the need to conform to overwhelming social pressure and pretending to be straight, homosexuals will typically not produce their own progeny (although this is now changing due to advances in medical technology, let's stick with the state of nature so we can discuss the evolutionary aspects).

In the state of nature, we can assume that homosexuals will not produce offspring. So why do the genes still exist? The answer is called "balanced polymorphism". This is when an allele is advantageous in some, but not all, circumstances. The oft-cited example (and the one used in the articles I quoted) is sickle-cell disease. Having the allele on both chromosomes is almost certainly fatal without modern medical intervention, but having the allele on only one chromosome leads to malaria immunity. This is why sickle-cell anaemia is highly prevalent in many malaria-zones, such as in some areas of Africa, as it leads to immunity against plasmodium falciparum.[]
It also helps explain why sickle-cell hasn't been eradicated from the gene-pool.

However, there is a distinction between sickle-cell disease, which can cause severe physiological damage to the patient and once contracted in the full form is in no way advantages, and homosexuality. I will take Wikipedia's definition: "A disease is a particular abnormal, pathological condition that affects part or all of an organism. It is often construed as a medical condition associated with specific symptoms and signs" [].
Instead, homosexuality is better thought of as a trait similar to hair colour, eye colour and height; a complex interaction of genes, hormones and environment which leads to the expression of a sexuality along a continuum. This is because the phenotype of being homosexual is not pathological, nor inherently destructive to the individual, and is therefore not a disease.

So now we know what balanced polymorphism is, how does that help us understand the continuation of homosexuality?
It goes back to the x-chromosome discussed earlier. Females who carry the gene are more likely to have children earlier and have more of them. This was demonstrated in the study to be of sufficient volume to counteract the effects of homosexuals not having children. Furthermore, it led to greater levels of instinctive nurturing, suggesting that homosexual males who helped rear familial children were actually giving those children survival advantages. And because those children came from the mother carrying the gene, approximately half of those children would still be carriers, and so on.

If we return to the definition, we can see that homosexuality does not fulfil the criteria for being listed as a psycho-social disorder, because it is not something you "catch" through life experience, and it is also not a "maladaptive" behaviour or cognitive process. It is a naturally-occurring behaviour set in a portion of the population of almost all animals, especially mammals. If your contention is that if the majority don't do it, then it's a disorder, then people who skydive and go to space must also have "psycho-social" or "behavioural" disorders. The key difference, though, is that skydivers and astronauts choose to do those things.

Onto your comment about self-lubrication.
Sure, the anus isn't self-lubricating. It was also not evolved with the primary function of sexual activity. But nor was the mouth. Are you saying we should ban oral sex, too? What about manual and digital sex? Fingers and hands aren't (biologically speaking) sex organs, either. Further to that, not all homosexuals engage in anal sex, in the same way that not all heterosexual couples engage in vaginal sex. This also has nothing to do with marriage.

You said: "Homosexuals are at least 5 times as likely to experience mental illness and 7 times more likely to commit suicide". Do you think it's possible that this is because of all the hateful things they have to put up with from people in their communities hating them for who they are? As if their sexual orientation affected anyone other than themselves and their partners?

You also make a big claim about scientific coverups and intellectual and scientific dishonesty in saying that the DSM has been bastardised by (someone?) to no longer list homosexuality as a mental condition. Firstly, the nature of the DSM is under intense scrutiny because realistically until around DSM4 it wasn't even empirical. Secondly, DSM5 has a huge number of shortcuts and other issues it's failed to sort out. Finally, because of the nature of our changing understanding of mental health and social stigma, it makes perfect sense that upon discovering actual evidence, something that used to be listed as a disease is removed, and things that used to be taken as malingering (such as shell shock/PTSD) are now included.

I'd like to conclude in saying this. Homosexuality isn't a disorder. But if it was, having a disorder should not preclude anyone from getting married. Should people with multiple sclerosis not be allowed to get married? The anus doesn't self-lubricate. Ok, you're right. But what does that have to do with getting married?

Marriage equality should be extended to all persons, regardless of sexual orientation, race, religion, creed, culture, political affiliation or any other factor, as provided by the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.

What a person does in their bedroom only affects them and the person they're with. It doesn't affect anyone else. This is even more the case when it comes to homosexuals as they can't be held responsible for accidentally creating a child they have to look after, which is possible in heterosexual relationships.

It is not about "gay marriage" being right or wrong. It is about marriage being a right.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for at least an intelligent argument, however misguided I may hold it to be.Your assertion that homosexuality is anything other than a psycho-social disorder is lacking in factual data, in other words simply your opinion. It is a fact that homosexuals are maladjusted individuals, (my contention that they are many times more likely to have a mental illness clearly demonstrates this and can be verified easily by viewing national statistics). It is a fact that most homosexuals were exposed to homosexuality as children or young adults, thereby influencing them. It is a fact that at some point the majority of medical professionals in the field of human psychology believed based on their research, that homosexuality was in fact a mental illness. It is a fact that the anus is not a sexual organ, the contention that not all homosexuals engage in anal sex is irrelevant.
It is also a fact that when presented with a partner of the opposite sex in addition to same sex, animals chose the opposite sex more times than the same, which is kinda where the gay animal theory fell apart; but thats old news as Im sure you are aware. How does any of this relate to marriage? Lets examine this: If homosexuality is a psycho social disorder as I have claimed, then should this disqualify the mentally ill from marrying? No. Thats what we call discrimination. No one has said Gay people cant get married, what they have said is that they cannot call their relationship marriage because it never qualified in the first place. Marriage for religious purposes has always been defined as a union between a man and a woman, where their bodies become a single body. Allowing gays to marry will forever tarnish the very fabric of a fundamental, albeit, essential part of my faith. Why then is it ok for homosexuals to change the definition of marriage my faith established in this country. Why should I have to include a group of people whom have chosen to be with someone of the same sex in a ceremony my faith does not include them in. Does that not infringe on my right to practice my faith as I see fit? So why does the fact that the anus does not lubricate hold any relevance in the gay marriage debate? If what they are doing is perverse, animalistic, and inherently dangerous it illustrates that homosexuality is indeed a mental disorder and that they are not simply a demographic which is being discriminated against they are sick people who are attempting to destroy the sanctity of marriage. Let me clarify my position as well, I am not in favor of homosexual behavior but that does not mean that I want to deny them any rights that I am afforded. It is a fact that homosexuals have the exact same right to marry as I do, what they seek is an extra right which includes persons of the same sex. Why are they entitled to special rights? The nature and definition of marriage does not include them, so the rest of the world is laughing at their fake fraudulent marriage cert. some liberal state allowed them, we do not see it as valid because it's like saying "I just got married to a dolphin", ridiculous. Am I discriminating against dolphins now?? Of course not,they simply are not included in the definition of marriage. If two gay people want to live together and adopt each others last name and get all the same benefits as married folk so be it, they just cant call themselves married.
"The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association yielded suddenly and completely to political pressure when in 1973 it removed homosexuality as a treatable aberrant condition. A political firestorm had been created by gay activists within psychiatry, with intense opposition to normalizing homosexuality coming from a few outspoken psychiatrists who were demonized and even threatened, rather than scientifically refuted. Psychiatry"s House of Delegates sidestepped the conflict by putting the matter to a vote of the membership, marking for the first time in the history of healthcare that a diagnosis or lack of diagnosis was decided by popular vote than by scientific evidence"
This should suffice to show the true nature of the removal as a disorder.
Here are the chain of events:

�1973 " Board of Trustees of The American Psychiatric Association (APA) approves the deletion of homosexuality from the DSM-II and substitutes a diagnosis of "sexual orientation disturbance." Intense discussion and debate followed.
On Dec 15 1973, the Board of Trustees of the APA voted to delete homosexuality altogether from the DSM. Opposition from several psychiatrists immediately followed. A referendum on the Board"s decision was called.
�1974 " the entire membership of the APA was polled for their support or rejection of the Board"s decision. �Of the 10,000 voting members, nearly 40% opposed the Board"s decision to normalize homosexuality. Decision was hardly unanimous. (Controversially, a survey conducted in 1979 asked 10,000 psychiatrists if they felt homosexuality "usually represented a pathological adaptation." �69% of respondents said "yes," and �60% said homosexual men were less capable of "mature, loving relationships" than heterosexual men.)
In conclusion homosexuals are not born that way, there is no genetic evidence of such predisposition. The fact that the anus does not self-lubricate should end the debate on whether or not homosexuality is even natural which it clearly is not. By your own definition this deems homosexuals mentally ill as they are engaging in behavior that can cause harm to themselves and others, and it is unnatural. So, even if penguins are sometimes gay(consequently that theory has been disproven more times than I care to count) it still does not make it a normal HUMAN behavior. Lastly, it really burns me up when someone dares to compare the african american civil right struggle to that of homosexuals who want to play house. First of all it is ones choice to decide whether or not to come out as gay, Black people cannot choose to not be black(until Michael Jackson that is lol). Homosexuals are not told they cant drink from a water fountain or ride a bus, simply that they cannot change the longstanding definition marriage to appease their desire to be viewed as normal. In places where gay marriage has been allowed; guess what less than 5% actually got married following the ruling. I have said it before and I will say it again, Homosexuals do not seek marriage equality they seek acceptance and validation. They want to be assured that what they are doing is not wrong or unnatural despite the fact that nature shows it to be so. One last question, if homosexuals cannot procreate than how is it they are still around?? It is a choice just like pedophilia(who also ironically enough claim to be born that way). If it were not a choice how does one explain the masses of ex gays??


I thank my opponent for his response. I'm just going to jump straight in!

You start off by asserting that I have presented an opinion and that I am "lacking in factual data". No, sir, you are the one who has presented absolutely no evidence to support your numerous sentences beginning with "it is a fact". Is it? Prove it. In contrast, I have presented you with numerous studies and the medical definition of "psychosocial disorder" and empircally demonstrated that this term is not applied clinically to homosexuals because it is, simply, a medically inaccurate description.

"It is a fact that homosexuals are maladjusted individuals". No it isn't. Demonstrate that this is the case. You have provided no evidence to substantiate this biggoted claim.

"It is a fact that homosexuals were exposed to homosexuality as children or young adults, theyby influencing them". No, that's not a fact, that's what you want to believe to be true so that you can rationalise something that frightens you and conflicts with your worldview. Let me guess, you're a Christian?

"It is a fact that at some point the majority of medical professionals in the field of human psychology believed based on their research, that homosexuality was in fact a mental illness." So I'm a psychology major, and I've asked a number of professors about this, and you're just wrong, unless you can provide evidence to substantiate your claim.

"It is a fact that the anus is not a sexual organ". You have such an anal fixation! You do realise that heterosexuals engage in anal sex, too? What about lesbians? They're homosexual. And no, that contention is just as relevant as is anal sex to getting married.

Of course animals will choose to have sex with members of the opposite sex more often. That's because heterosexuality is more common than homosexuality. Like, really? How does that mean "gay animal theory fell apart?"

Oh look, I was right, you are a Christian. Marriage is a legal institution, and the definition of marriage has already changed so many times, you are only refusing this change because it doesn't suit you. "This country". I don't know, which country do you live in? They didn't choose someone of the same sex.

No, that doesn't infringe on your right to practice your faith. YOU don't have to marry another man, do you? You can marry whoever you like, just as they should be able to. Two men being married does not prevent you from marrying a woman. What an absurd statement.

Ok. Let's just get something straight. You're comparing the marriage between two congnisent, consenting adults, to that of a dolphin. Are you serious, or is this a joke you're making? We're not talking about animals getting married because that's absurd and you're committing the slippery slope falacy. Dolphins don't have the right to marry, male or female. Changing the definition of marriage is not difficult and does not affect your right to marry whoever you like.

Now you've spurted about a bunch of quotations which you haven't refrenced from so long ago that genetic testing wasn't even half the level of what it is today. Where did you get this from? Citations citations citations. You have still provided no evidence.

I'm going to make a falcon-punch in this paragraph instead of nitpicking through everything because it's clear you have no interest in truth, only reinforcing your own biggoted ideology and hatred for your brother and sister humans.

I never compared anything to the African-American civil rights movement. You have made absolutely no attempt to rebut my scintifically validated statements. That's because you can't. Homosexuality is not a choice, and I don't care how much you like talking about anuses. Saying that the anus doesn't self lubricate, therefore it is unnatural, is the same as saying masturbation and kissing and heterosexual anal sex and everything else is unnatural. Your arguments do not come from a place of truth-seeking. They come from a place of indoctrination, hatred, biggotry and ignorance. You have absolutely no evidence to support your claims. You then asked if homosexuals cannot procreate, how are they still around, which I demonstrated to you thoroughly in the previous round. Go back and look for where I explained "balanced polymorphism" and gave the example of sickle-cell disease.

People of your clan stand at a crossroads. And, sir, you are on the wrong side of history. Just as people picketed against women's suffrage and, yes, the African-American civil rights movement, so too will you be redfaced when the rightious prevail and secure equality. Here's an exercise for you. Try to imagine yourself being gay for just two seconds. Try to "choose" being gay. Not easy, right? Do you think it's possible that that's how homosexuals feel about "choosing" to be straight? If it's so repulsive to you, how do you think homosexuals seem to do it so easily? Of course I can give you an insurmountable volume of evidence about gay animals but just like all of my previous arguments, you will ignore them, because you can't argue against them.

You have not made contentions against any of my evidence. You have rebutted nothing. You have supplied no evidence. All you have done is supplied your opinion, which is valueless unless supported by evidence.

I contend once more that you are not seeking the truth of the issue. You are seeking to validate what you only believe because other people told you to. You have no reseaon to believe these things about your fellow human beings.

You have also barely addressed the concept of marriage, other than to say that it would require a change in the definition.

Yes, yes it would. And it will.
Debate Round No. 2


This debate is over, clearly you are unable to understand simple logic and unwilling to draw the most reasonable of conclusions because you have been indoctrinated with these homobabble talking points. First off all of your so called evidence is either irrelevant or inaccurate and I'm not gonna waste time citing every scientific journal excerpt for someone that cant grasp a most basic concept which is homosexuality is unnatural. The anus does not lubricate that ends the debate on whether or not its natural because it clearly isn't, you refuse to admit even a simple defeat.


Given that my opponent has clearly lost the debate in his final round, I have far less work to do here than anticipated.

My opponent says I clearly don't understand logic. Except he hasn't given any reasons why his position is correct. Although he's talked about anal sex a lot (which is a bit weird), this really has nothing to do with marriage. Straight people have anal sex. Lesbians are female so can't. I mean, this guy either has an anal obsession or is literally so deluded that he can't understand the distinction between sex and marriage. Animals have anal sex, is that unnatural?

Regardless, my opponent is committing the Appeal to Nature fallacy. Just because something is natural doesn't make it good, like arsenic or uranium, and just because it's unnatural doesn't make it bad, like my opponent's Internet connection and DDO account.

Even if it were unnatural, what does this have to do with marriage?

My opponent has cited no sources. He has not argued against my insurmountable scientific clarification of homosexuality. He is blinded by indoctrinated bigotry and hatred. He is not interested in truth, rather reinforcing his antiquated, uninformed ideology. I'll spend no more time on this argument, as some forms of brainwashing are irreversible. I hope my opponent learns to accept and tolerate his fellow brother and sister human beings, instead of perpetuating this medeaval propaganda.

Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by InnovativeEphemera 2 years ago
Thanks for giving me something to work off, I look forward to a spirited debate. Forgot to mention in my round, I will of course expect you to produce evidence for your assertion about the cover-up of the truth about homosexuality. Of course, this does sound like highly conspiratorial thinking, but if you can demonstrate this to be true I'll happily concede.

This still has nothing to do with marriage, however.
Posted by TheMoralCompass2014 2 years ago
Here is my take just to save you some time: No gay gene has been found even after mapping entire human genome.(See Human Genome Project for evidence).
The human anus does not self lubricate on either men or women meaning it is not a sexual organ(See 9th grade anatomy for evidence).
Homosexuals cannot procreate, and before you forge ahead with the sterile heterosexual argument, please note that given there were no illness, disease, or disorder the heterosexual couple could theoretically conceive and bear children; likewise, even with a perfect body absent any deformations or other ailments related to ones ability to procreate, homosexuals still cannot.
Homosexuals are at least 5 times as likely to experience mental illness and 7 times more likely to commit suicide, this is because homosexuality is a mental disorder and was considered as such by the APA until 1973 when it was removed from the DSM because the Dr.s conducting the research were threatened and intimidated into recanting years of scientific data proving homosexuality was a mental illness.
Posted by TheMoralCompass2014 2 years ago
Please be my guest..
Posted by InnovativeEphemera 2 years ago
Whoops found the rounds. Right on, let's go.
Posted by InnovativeEphemera 2 years ago
How many rounds/what's the period?
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by ArcTImes 2 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Pro. Con forfeited attacking Pro instead of his arguments. S&G is a tie. I didn't find huge mistakes. Arguments to Pro. He was the only one that used logic and reason to address Con's position. Con was not able to meet his BoP. Sources to Pro because he was able to use reliable sources. Con didn't use anything to back his claims.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro clearly wins this debate, Con escentially conceded in the last round and Pro back all his arguments with sources making them more valid than con's.
Vote Placed by Splenic_Warrior 2 years ago
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro receives the conduct vote because Con seemed unable to carry on a civilized debate, the arguments vote mostly because Con wasn't able to justify a claim that it is wrong. Finally, Con's alleged sources are 40 years old, and we don't really know what they are (hint: a link would help), while Pro provided sources that actually support his case.