The Instigator
firemonkey6775
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
Derrida
Con (against)
Winning
91 Points

Gays break the laws of nature.

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: 1/11/2008 Category: Health
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,236 times Debate No: 1701
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (12)
Votes (30)

 

firemonkey6775

Pro

well simple for ever in every species male and female not male and male or female and female simple as that.
Derrida

Con

Thank you, fremonkey6775, for allowing me to debate a very important biological issue.

For the purposes of the debate, I'll assume that:
- "Natural" means in line with the facts and theories of the study of biology, and

- That homosexuality means sexual attraction to, or interaction with, people, (Or animals as the case may be), of the same sex.

The topic of the debate, that "Gays break the laws of nature", can to my mind be interpreted in 3 ways:

1) That animals do not engage in homosexual relations, and so that humans do is unnatural.

2) That homosexuality in humans, is in no way innate or genetically predetermined, but due to environmental causes or freedom of choice.

3) That, because homosexuality is not natural, as explained in (1) and (2), it is thus immoral.

Even though my opponent only explicitly states (1), I feel it pertinent to argue against all three.

1) This statement is, I believe, in contradiction with various biological studies and observations.

For instance, the University of Oslo's Natural History Museum in Norway opened an exhibition presenting 51 instances of animal homosexuality from different species, the the coordinator of the display has stated that "Homosexuality has been observed in more than 1,500 species, and the phenomenon has been well described for 500 of them", which appears to be the scientific consensus.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com...

Furthermore, the Bonobo, a primate, has been observed to engage in homosexual sex, and is a matriarchal society, with lesbianism being prevalent:

http://songweaver.com...

Some have argued that this is due to social aggression, and so isn't innate in these animals. However, some animals have been shown to stay with their homosexual partners even when given the opportunity to mate with members of the opposite sex, for instance sheep and penguins:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Also, homosexuality has been simulated in fruit flies by genetic and hormonal manipulation, which shows that homosexuality in animals isn't necessarily due to social factors:

http://www.sciencedaily.com...

All of these findings seem to indicate that homosexuality is a force in the animal kingdom, even amongst animals that obviously don't choose to be homosexual due to various factors such as increased aggression or mate availability.

2) There is also good evidence against this proposition. Firstly, scientists have found a correlation between homosexuality and moderate right-handedness, which is moderated by number of older brothers. Basically, gay men are more likely to be right-handed if they have no older brothers. This very strange occurrence suggests that homosexuality is correlated to some kind of prenatal cause, or as is stated by Anthony F. Bogaert of Brock University in St. Catharines Ontario, homosexuality is probably "...a result of genes, maternal hormones during pregnancy, or maternal immune system functioning during conception." Thus, homosexuality isn't a matter of choice for many homosexuals, but an innate predisposition.

http://www.sciencedaily.com...

Furthermore, a part of the brain called the INAH-3 was shown to be smaller in gay men than heterosexual men:

http://www.sciencemag.org...

Finally, the brains of lesbian women have been shown to respond differently to the hormones EST, (Found in female urine), and AND, (Found in male armpit secretions):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

To believe that homosexuality is due to choice or environmental factors is to believe that you can make certain parts of your brain shrink at will.

3) This is a statement that I disagree with more on a philosophical basis. If you didn't intend on pursuing this kind of topic, firemonkey, then feel free to ignore it or say that it isn't part of the debate, and I'll focus only on the first two points.

That something is unnatural implies that it is immoral seems to me to be a strange and somewhat hasty generalization. Because, many things that are unnatural are accepted by most people as moral, or at least not normally immoral. One instance would be playing chess. No animal other than humans has ever played such a complicated game that used the abstract reasoning that chess players do. So, it seems, if homosexuality is to be deemed immoral it must be based on more than its alleged non-naturalness.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
firemonkey6775

Pro

ok for starters 1,500 species is less than .1 percent of animals thats less than enough to convince me its even worth the time talking about. Next this homosexuality brings no positve affects except violence.

now to cover your points of number 2. ok so the whole right handed article that you put up there holds no weight it says well they were left handed now there right handed with older brothers taht makes no sense.

next to the two brain pieces you put up there well ok they have contorted and twisted there minds so much duhh things are wrong in there heads.

my turn now well here this is simple name 2 positive effects of homosexual relation ships.
Derrida

Con

I will now answer firemonkey's objections to my arguments for the innateness or "naturalness" of homosexuality.

"ok for starters 1,500 species is less than .1 percent of animals thats less than enough to convince me its even worth the time talking about."
Surely this objection is a non sequitur. I have shown instances of homosexuality arising in nature, which is the topic of this debate, rather than the 'popularity' of homosexuality within the natural kingdom. There are innate features that are only observed among certain birds, such as the instinct to fly south for the winter, but the fact that no other kinds of animal exhibit this does not mean that it isn't 'natural'.
Furthermore, the vast majority of animal species are invertebrates, and so do not have the intelligence to form any kind of sexuality; any homosexuality is due to a mistake between viable and non-viable mates. There are, in fact, only 57000 or so vertebrate species, out of the 1.5 million known animal species.

"now to cover your points of number 2. ok so the whole right handed article that you put up there holds no weight it says well they were left handed now there right handed with older brothers taht makes no sense."
The article states that, if you have no brothers, and you are right handed, that you are more likely to be homosexual than if you were left handed. From the article itself:

"In the new study, results indicate that the number of "older brothers moderates the relationship between handedness and sexual orientation." That is, the extreme right-handedness finding is only seen in men with no or few older brothers."

The fact that number of siblings alters the results is a clear sign that something links homosexuality to prenatal states, meaning that, during pregnancy, an unknown factor causes certain people to have a predisposition to homosexuality.

"next to the two brain pieces you put up there well ok they have contorted and twisted there minds so much duhh things are wrong in there heads."
However long you try for, no amount of straining, thinking, wanting, visualizing, will ever make a part of your brain shrink to half its size. If this ever did happen, it would be well documented, and scientists would alert the general public, because such a feat would be potentially fatal.

The last two objections mentioned by my opponent are good examples of 'Armchair Science'; analysis of the results of a scientific study without scientific literacy or understanding, leading to misinterpretation.

"Next this homosexuality brings no positve affects except violence."
I have no idea what you mean by "violence", unless you are referring to violence against homosexuals, in which case your argument is circular, as you'd be arguing that gay people are bad because they are hated by people, because those people think they are bad...

"my turn now well here this is simple name 2 positive effects of homosexual relation ships."
Would you accept the happiness of the people involved in the relationship as positive effects? If not, why not?

Happy to help.
Debate Round No. 2
firemonkey6775

Pro

ok well i kinda am concieding i dont have time to but together a good argument so sorry you win there
Derrida

Con

All right then.

My opponent has conceded the debate, so even if you think my counter-objections aren't that good, you should still vote for me as my opponent hasn't in fact rebutted them, whilst I have his.

I'll use this time to quickly sum up my arguments against the proposition. I think they are good arguments that show the innateness of homosexuality:

1) Homosexuality has been detected in animals, even when it would be more convenient to do otherwise.

2) Homosexuality has been shown to have some physiological basis, and so is at least in part due to genetics or a prenatal disposition, and as such, it is not a voluntary choice.

3) The supposed non-naturalness of homosexuality hasn't been shown by my opponent to entail the immorality of homosexuality.

Thank you all for taking an interest in this debate, and my opponent who has been very civil and courteous.
Debate Round No. 3
12 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by JonJon 9 years ago
JonJon
lol mmad... how, pray tell, are you going to garner information on human "nature."

Much of science is observing behavior. It's perfectly legitimate.

And, c'mon, the CDC? I think they know more about scientific discovery than any of us.
Posted by Derrida 9 years ago
Derrida
I added the piece about fruit flies because, in the article, it said that fruit flies perceived hormones differently once they had undergone the experiment, and were now "gender-blind", thus showing an instance of a causal relationship between genetic structure and sexual behavior.

Basically, I added it as evidence against the theory that animals exhibited homosexuality due to social stimuli.
Posted by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
"Here is a CDC link that says 40% of heterosexuals 40% have practiced anal sex. http://www.cdc.gov...;

Interesting. Of course that would be male on female anal sex and such a study would be completely dependent on polling. Oh, AND sexual experimentation doesn't equate to preference, but why sweat the details?

"As for the "gay fruit flies"... ummm it's a debate and it is considered scientific evidence."

It's not "scientific evidence" of anything relating to the debate. It's nothing more than observational theory and does NOT relate back to explaining human behavior in any manner.
Posted by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
"What's wrong with the argument?"

Many things. That the perceived behavior of fruit flies proves absolutely nothing where mammals are concerned not being the least of which.

You also can not determine the motivation or thought process of a fruit fly. We have no way of knowing whether they even recognize gender prior to attempting copulation. Trying to equate a human condition (being gay) to the perceived behavior of a fruit fly is nuts.

Also, why were fruit flies chosen for such a study in the first place? Wouldn't it make much more sense to study orangutan behavior or at least whales when trying to correlate back to humans?
Posted by JonJon 9 years ago
JonJon
Here is a CDC link that says 40% of heterosexuals 40% have practiced anal sex. http://www.cdc.gov...

As there is no clear consensus as to how many homosexuals there really are in the world, it would be hard to get a real sampling as to how many do and don't practice anal sex. I have many coupled friends. I'd say about perhaps 1/3 do. Maybe less. But that's just a guess.

As for the "gay fruit flies"... ummm it's a debate and it is considered scientific evidence. It is perfectly reasonable to use in an effort to win the debate.
Posted by Derrida 9 years ago
Derrida
"Gay fruit flys? You kidding me with THAT argument?"

What's wrong with the argument?
Posted by GBretz 9 years ago
GBretz
"Second, more anal sex is had between heterosexuals than between homosexuals."

I find that incredibly hard to believe. I'd like to see your source for such information.
Posted by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
Gay fruit flys? You kidding me with THAT argument?
Posted by prepsexpot69 9 years ago
prepsexpot69
To: Overman

Well, the mouth was not truly intended open up and stick out its tongue and pleasure a vagina, now was it? That was mans own invention. So, how do you know that (like patrock2 stated) that anal sex is not just a way of nature's true birth control. On another note, it has been proven by polls that more straight couples have anal sex than homosexual couples (and that's ALL we homosexuals can do) [as JonJon said]. Most homosexuals couples prefer mutual masturbation to anal sex. To also get at another point of "what things were meant to do or be", hands were not meant to hold guns and SHOOT someone. Guns were not even invented until long after creation. Hands were not meant for murder, yet it happens everyday.

To: firemonkey

a) Put up a better argument and do not start a debate on a serious subject unless you intend to make the time to support your views.

b) You show no supporting facts to give a backbone to your debate. You are only showing personal preferences, not factual evidence.

c) You state that homosexuality ONLY brings violence. Well, homosexuals are just as capable of heterosexuals of loving, caring, and protecting their loved ones. Think of this: many individuals commit acts of homicide and murder against their wives and husbands. These people are straight (most of the time) and is this NOT considered violence. Think about what you're saying. Heterosexuality brings just as much violence. Heck, if not for some of the dim-witted people running the countries of the world, there would not be so much war. Most straight men (not trying to be stereotypical) engage in acts of proving themselves to being "men" and are "tough, hard-headed, and demeaning" to others. (In no way am I trying to attack heterosexual men, but this is just my observation over the years.) These, as far as I am concerned, are just as violent. Thoughts of hatred and spite are JUST as much at fault for being violent as one person killing another.
Posted by JonJon 9 years ago
JonJon
Overman...

If sex is only to create children, then why do heterosexuals have more sex without producing any children?

Second, more anal sex is had between heterosexuals than between homosexuals.

You make the common mistake of relegating homosexuality to the act of sex. It is not only about sex, as heterosexuality is not only about sex.

It's all about who you're attracted to man. Pure and simple.
30 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Rachelmarie 9 years ago
Rachelmarie
firemonkey6775DerridaTied
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 steelersfan189 9 years ago
steelersfan189
firemonkey6775DerridaTied
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 Kals 9 years ago
Kals
firemonkey6775DerridaTied
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 blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
firemonkey6775DerridaTied
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 JOEYMER21 9 years ago
JOEYMER21
firemonkey6775DerridaTied
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 mrqwerty 9 years ago
mrqwerty
firemonkey6775DerridaTied
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 solo 9 years ago
solo
firemonkey6775DerridaTied
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 Chob 9 years ago
Chob
firemonkey6775DerridaTied
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 kels1123 9 years ago
kels1123
firemonkey6775DerridaTied
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 pazmusik 9 years ago
pazmusik
firemonkey6775DerridaTied
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