The Instigator
greggiewong
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
socialpinko
Pro (for)
Winning
29 Points

Homosexual lifestyle

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 7 votes the winner is...
socialpinko
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/15/2012 Category: Health
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,299 times Debate No: 22041
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (34)
Votes (7)

 

greggiewong

Con

Why society should discourage the homosexual lifestyle and agenda

1. Physical Incompatibility

A gay couple can never produce a child **by design**, they lack the ability to reproduce with each other.

From a religious perspective, if God didn't design the parts to fit, then He must not have meant for those parts to fit. Who are we to argue with God's design (some may say then why did God make them that way, wait till you read my argument below on this before you respond to this).

From an evolutionary perspective, if there was an advantage to homosexual reproduction over sexual reproduction, we'll eventually all become bisexuals and hermaphrodites eventually. In addition, from a biological point of view, individuals with severe genetic disorders either die at birth or at a young age or are sterile when they reach reproduction age, this is to prevent genetic defects from spreading further into the population. Now that is not to say I believe in the "gay gene" (which I'll debate later below), but supposing that genetics predispositions a person towards a certain sexual orientation, this lifestyle was not meant to continue its line.

So it's against God's design, it's against nature.

Before someone mentions it, I might as well argue the counter argument that heterosexual couples that are incapable of having children should not be allowed together. To refute this counter example is easy, a hetrosexual couple who cannot reproduce is a result of some biological defect, which is separate from design. They are designed to reproduce, but are unable to for some medical reason. bottomline: Defect versus against design.

2. It's not a choice to having homosexual feelings, it is a choice to act upon them.

Everyone has all sorts of feelings throughout their lives, sometimes we get irritated at someone, sometimes we lose our temper, sometimes we're happy, sometimes we're sad, it's not something that we can readily change. It's how we feel.

But if I get angry and use that rage to kill someone, then I'm acting upon a feeling, and it is that act that is a choice. There are always things we can do to control how we feel. Homoesexual feelings are not much different.

It is a completely incorrect statement to say that homosexuality is not a choice, because in order to make that statement, then from a logic point of view, there cannot be a single person in the history of mankind that has ever changed their sexual orientation. But we know this is not true, people have changed their sexual orientation.

Examples
http://www.springerlink.com...
http://www.cbn.com...

there are more if you just google.

So how far this argument goes, I can tell you for certain that it at the very least disproves the statemnet that sexual orientation can't be changed and lays that one to rest because all you need is one counter example to disprove a blanket statement like that.

3. It's not God's design

Most people always argue that if God didn't want individuals to live the homosexual lifestyle, then why make them that way. To tackle the problem with this statement, I'll take the position from a Christian point of view. According to biblical teachings, yes, God made man and woman, BUT, the couple sinned and sin entered into their being which made man's sense of morality tipsy turby. So it is not accurate to say that homosexuals are made by God, that's like saying God made a murderer, a pedophile...etc. These we agree are perverted behaviors, homosexual behavior is no different. It is a deviation from the standard, commonly accepted practice for sexual relations. And yet we don't do anything to help homosexual individuals overcome their addictions. Saying that homosexuality is okay is depriving such individuals from getting the right wires reconnected again from a mis-writing due to sin.

Another analogy, if we made a computer software to behave a certain way, then a virus infects it and causes it to behave differently. Do we say that the software is supposed to behave like that? Of course not, we say it's the virus causing it to behave that way and that it's not operating within its intended purpose

Let's start with three arguments for now, we'll add more as we move along.

Bottom line:
- not their fault to have homosexual feelings
- it's a choice to act upon those feelings
- we have a responsiblity as a society to determine the cause of homosexuality so we can offer freedom to those who wish to leave the homosexual lifestyle
socialpinko

Pro

Contention 1: Physical incompatibility

The religious perspective

My opponent first argues that if humans were designed in a certain way by an intelligent designer (God) to "fit" a certain way, than to act contrary to that design would be immoral. Since immorality ought to be discouraged, my opponent comes to the conclusion that homosexual acts ought to be discouraged. I see no problem with the validity of this argument, however the soundness is incredibly dubious. Mostly because my opponent in no way attempts to substantiate his seemingly assumed premise regarding the existence of an intelligent designer. If my opponent cannot prove that such a designer exists, then this argument can hold no weight.

The evolutionary perspective

My opponent next argues that there is no evolutionary advantage to homosexuality and that evolution discourages homosexuality as they cannot produce progeny. I will remind my opponent that the resolution which he is defending is that society "should" discourage homosexuality. This implies a moral prescription on how a group of individuals ought to act. But my opponent arrives at this ought from an is. The simple fact that nature may or may not discourage homosexuality or that homosexuality IS not advantageous to a species does not bridge the gap to a prescriptive ought. Hume called this the is/ought gap and my opponent has not shown why the IS (the non-advantageous nature of homosexuality) implies the OUGHT (that society should discourage it). If my opponent cannot do this than his contention is insufficient in uphlding the resolution.

Contention 2: It's not a choice to having homosexual feelings, it is a choice to act upon them.

While I personally disagree with this contention of my opponent's (that homosexuality is a choice), I see no reason why it is necessary to uphold or negate the resolution. Since my opponent has not shown any reason why homosexuality OUGHT to be discouraged, the reason one commits homosexual acts is of no relevance. Therefore I will concede this point to my opponent as it is of no value in this debate and I'm a bit too lazy to argue for why it is not a choice when it holds no meaning to the scope of the debate.

Contention 3: It's not God's design

My opponent has as of yet provided no evidence of any intelligent designer of the human species and so this point holds no weight in affirming the resolution. I pointed this out in refuting his sub-religious argument in his Physical Incompatibility contention.
Debate Round No. 1
greggiewong

Con

My response in round two will be but a single mode of thought as my opponent has funnelled all three arguments to a case of IS versus OUGHT

If you saw someone trying to feed himself through his ears and not his mouth (it's not hurting anyone), but he's acting contrary to the norm. Would you do anything to assist him to eat properly? Why do we even bother helping kids with autism or learning disabilities? Why do we teach kids proper manners? Why do we teach kids how to act properly in public? The thing is when we see something out of place or not working properly or not working towards their full potential, we have a tendency to fix things. Homosexual couples are acting in a way that their bodies were not designed for.

I'm not saying we need to force people out of that lifestyle, but we shouldn't encourage it and cover it under the shroud of normalcy. If we define normalcy as that of historical and majority behavioural patterns, then homosexuality is not normal behaviour. Why do we correct people who mis-use things.

And if we define normalcy as the proper use of ones reproductive organs, then homosexuality is not normal because homosexual partners mis-use their reproductive organs. I'll use an example for two male homosexuals: the anus is for expelling solid waste matter, not the receiving of spermatozoa-containing fluids. There are no cells in the anus or even colon for that matter that can be fertilized by spermatozoa. Not to mention that it's fact that male homosexual partners have many-fold higher changes of contracting an STD. So from an STD point of view, male homosexuality should be discouraged to reduce the spread of STD's. From the point of view of normalcy and mis-use of one's body parts, it should be discouraged.

Suppose for example that it was found that homosexuality could be remedied with a pill, will this change the stance of society to encourage or discourage homosexuality? I believe it would. The ability to change homosexual orientation to heterosexual orientation would change the way society as a whole thinks of homosexuality.

So then this argument boils down to, is there such a path or option that could change sexual orientation. From my arguments above, the answer is yes, there are people who have made that transition. Homosexuality can be fixed, which makes it a condition. If it is a condition that can be changed, then society needs to stop propping it up as the new "in" thing that its proud of, but to approach it from the point of view that there is a problem, how better can we develop ways to fix it. Society has jumped too quickly is claiming homosexuality as normal when a path exists that people have chosen to take to change their sexual orientation and remove homosexual feelings. If there were ZERO examples of such cases then there would be less substance in this argument, but since such examples exist, it is more difficult to claim that homosexuality is normal.

As a clarification to contention 2, my opponent misunderstood my wording, I said "it is a choice to act upon them", which is different from homosexuality is a choice. A murderer can have feelings to kill, but it is his choice to act upon it. A person can have lust and homosexual feelings, but if they don't act upon it, it doesn't make them homosexual. Our actions define us.

What I would like to see in the second round though is for the opponent to attempt to reconcile the issues brought forth under the assumption of the existence of a creator. Attack the argument under that assumption instead of brushing it aside with the blanket "can't prove god exists" argument.
socialpinko

Pro

The bridge between is and ought

(1) Normalcy, contrary, and usual behavior in regards

My opponent argues that in our everyday life, we tend to discourage actions contrary to the norm of a society. He brings up the example of eating through one's ear rather than through one's mouth as an example. My opponent jumps from the fact that one would usually try to help someone to eat properly to the position that one should do this. This reasoning isn't bridging the gap between what is and ought to be at all, it's merely a re-framing of the proposition. The is is being changed to the fact that we do these things. My opponent still doesn't provide any reason why one should act in this way. On helping children with Autism or teaching them manners, I wouldn't argue against people doing this, I'm merely pointing out the fact that we do do these things doesn't necessarily mean that we have some sort of prescriptive obligation to do so.

(2) The ability to change sexual orientation

My opponent brings up the question of how one's opinion would change if it turned out that homosexual attraction could be changed or "cured". If it could be changed, my opponent argues, than we apparently should do so. However, even if the possibility of altering sexual orientation existed, how does this bridge the gap which my opponent has not been able to? How does the ability to do something translate to a reason why a person or a group of persons have an obligation to do this?

(3) The existence of a Creator and teleological function

My opponent has decided that instead of substantiating his position and premise of an intelligent designer, that I should just assume it for arguments sake. However, I'l remind my opponent that all premises on which one bases their arguments must be properly justified for a point to have any intellectual value. If my opponent did not properly justfy this premise than that isn't my problem and I'm under no obligatino to waive it. As such I will not be assuming the existence of any intelligent designer in the scope of this debate.
Debate Round No. 2
greggiewong

Con

Round 3 wrap up time

summary
- why society needs to discourage homosexual behavior
- because society always tries to make things right, reduce harm, put things back to status quo from their perturbance. status quo being proper use of functions (bodily or otherwise).
- it's what keeps order in society and keeps everything functioning (homosexuality isn't an end of the world thing that'll throw the whole world in chaos, but, it is one aspect among many in society that's out of order, and it's a the cumulitive effect of all things out of order that leads to a breakdown of society and chaos, every bit adds up). homosexuality is a breakdown of a balance in a family with a father and mother (this can be another debate). when a child yells "dad!" who answers?
- homosexual behavior is out of order, as argued by the mis-use of the function of reproductive organs, it is not normal behavior because it mis-uses body parts. further to it being out of order, the biology is against it as homosexual couples can't reproduce and continue their way of life, there must be a disadvantage biologically from same sex reproduction. it is also out of order within the frameset of what's set-up in nature.
- homosexual behavior is a condtion because people have come out of it (if people have come out of it, that means it can be fixed)
- it is a choice to act on homosexual feelings as it is to act upon feelings of anger and rage (can't blame people for having feelings, but you can blame them for acting on them)
- it should be discouraged because it's statistical fact that two male gay partners's probability of contracting and spreading STD's are many-fold higher than the norm, this is a case of where there is spillage of harm to the rest of society, it increases the spread of such STD's and does affect the rest of us. and when there is spill-over effects, society has a right to protect itself by discouraging such behavior
socialpinko

Pro

My opponent in his closing arguments has unfortunately not responded at all to the fact that his argument in no way was able to bridge the gap between what is (whether it be the nature of homosexuality or how we as members of a society usually act) and what ought to be. I acknowledge that if one were to find a man trying to eat soup out of his ear I would probably help him to eat out of his mouth. Of course this analogy doesn't exactly work as far as homosexuality is concerned as from what I can gather, homosexuals are not actually trying to have heterosexual sex. That's the entire point behind the fact that homosexuals aren't heterosexuals. But that's beside the matter. What is important is that my opponent has not shown any good reason for why anyone SHOULD discourage homosexual behavior. As such all of his arguments about whether homosexuality can be changed, whether homosexuals are at a higher risk for STD's, or whether homosexual behavior is normal are insufficient and completely beside the point as far as dealing with the actual resolution which, as my opponent stated in R1, is "Why society should discourage the homosexual lifestyle and agenda". Notice the keyword should which indicates a prescription for how one ought to behave. Shown a bit more clearly, my opponent's arguments have gone as follows:

Premise: Homosexual sex cannot result in procreation.
Conclusion: Society ought to discourage homosexuality.

My opponent starts with a perfectly valid premise here (which is more than I can say for others which he uses) but proceeds to make a completely unsubstantiated jump. What is contained in the above premise which would necessitate the conclusion? Nothing. The conclusion can only be necessitated with a second evaluative premise such as "Society should discourage sex which cannot result in procreation". While he would then need to also substantiate this argument, at the very least it would make my opponent's argument valid, even if not sound. My opponent has not done this with any of his arguments and thus the conclusion that society should discourage homosexual behavior is entirely unsupported. My opponent's arguments restated for clarity:

Contention: Society usually puts things back to the status quo. This is a statement about what is, however it does not translate in any meaningful sense to what ought to be. Contention: Homosexuality is the breakdown of the family. No warrant for this statement. My opponent never defined family and never showed why homosexuals cannot have families. Even if my opponent could do this though the argument is still left open to the same charge of the previous ones, that it does not translate into what ought to be the case without an evaluative premise. Contention: Homosexuality is a mis-use of body parts. Also no evaluative premise to prove how one ought to use one's genitals, namely no warrant as to whether one has any sort of moral obligation to procreate or in a manner of the type that results in procreation. Contention: Homosexuality is a condition and can be cured. While I disagree with this assertion, it also does not translate into what ought to be. Even if it is conceded that homosexuality is a condition, just like depression or cancer, that does not mean that one SHOULD fix it or change it. Contention: Homosexuals have higher rates of STD's. This is open to the same charge as every single one of my opponent's other arguments. No evaluative premise means no objective SHOULD can be derived.

I wish this debate could have been more interesting, but my opponent didn't give me much to work with. Essentially each and every one of his arguments was refuted by the single fact that he did not even attempt to insert a premise which would make his arguments valid, much less sound. As my opponent has not upheld his burden of proof for this debate and the resolution has been satisfactorily refuted, I urge a Pro vote.
Debate Round No. 3
34 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
I took from what he said that there was no reason to assume intelligent design without warrant. But you can ask him to change the vote if you want.
Posted by Lordknukle 4 years ago
Lordknukle
16k made the point that he is atheist and therefore doesn't believe in that. His own biases played into the voting, rather than the arguments.
Posted by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
16k made the point that Con's arguments presupposes an intelligent designer, something that he failed to substantiate.
Posted by Lordknukle 4 years ago
Lordknukle
16k:

The arguments aren't supposed to revolve around your opinion. I would counter VB you but it is obvious that Pro won.
Posted by greggiewong 4 years ago
greggiewong
I know you did that's why you throw personal attacks and put words in my mouth. Where did I say I hate? No where, it was you that implied it. Trying to reveal a fault in a lifestyle does not mean you hate them. It's just like me arguing that alcoholics need to change their ways, but whenever you try and correct homosexual behavior for their own good you go at it with personal attacks. As an educator you need to hold back on personal attacks.
Posted by Greyparrot 4 years ago
Greyparrot
Love thy neighbor....yah i'll just toss that one out.
Posted by greggiewong 4 years ago
greggiewong
Actually I gave you a blend of links, even have you a peer reviewed published article. Show proof to disprove each one otherwise just saying its been disproven won't be taken seriously.
I know some Christians think otherwise but do they know the bible well? The bible is a teaching and correction tool. It does say that a man should not lie with a other man like he does a woman. Christians can't take what they like from the bible and ignore what they don't like. It also says that all scripture is goods words. Honestly theres no excuse for homosexual behavior in the bible. An I saying those Christians are wrong? Yes I am, I would correct them and show them what the bible really teaches which most even know themselves as they take things out of context.
Posted by Yurlene 4 years ago
Yurlene
I hope you, CON knows that dr robert spitzer with other scientists have said ,any times that anti gay organizations have twisted their studies... Posting links to ex-gay ministries isn't helping the case as I have read several of these faux studies, and they seem to fall apart under scrutiny.
Secondly, there are other Christians who disagree on your stance of what God might says.
Posted by greggiewong 4 years ago
greggiewong
ok cool, i'm going to sleep then, debate with u tmr then.
Posted by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
I won't be on my computer until tomorrow so I'm waiting to post my argument.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by The_Fool_on_the_hill 4 years ago
The_Fool_on_the_hill
greggiewongsocialpinkoTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Normalcy and awful argument. We have sex for more reasons then reproducing. With the over population they probably benificial. You have to prove god to use god in an arguement.
Vote Placed by Yep 4 years ago
Yep
greggiewongsocialpinkoTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Homersexuals always win! and so do some Homosexuals! Pinko falls in the category of both :D
Vote Placed by Maikuru 4 years ago
Maikuru
greggiewongsocialpinkoTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Con attempted to explain why homosexuality differs from the norm, but not how such differences necessitate change on their part. This was his entire burden and it fell to Pro's reasoning. Also, Con's last round grammar was lacking.
Vote Placed by SarcasticIndeed 4 years ago
SarcasticIndeed
greggiewongsocialpinkoTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro refuted everything Con said, and all Con's arguments were obviously invalid. At first, he took the religious perspective without any proof or reason, and then totally changed his points, making another bunch of invalid arguments.
Vote Placed by TUF 4 years ago
TUF
greggiewongsocialpinkoTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con lacked BOP for his claim Pro had much better structure which was easier to follow, and the arguments were more consistent. He also refuted all of the CON's arguments succesfully.
Vote Placed by Greyparrot 4 years ago
Greyparrot
greggiewongsocialpinkoTied
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: Con kept changing his reasons for contending what society ought to do, and then did not back them up. Pro was correct in saying Con did not explain at all why sex outside of procreation ought to be abolished by society. A clear loss for Con.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
greggiewongsocialpinkoTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: his arguments revolved around god, I am atheist, therefore it doesn't apply. Pro refuted all of cons arguments easily.