The Instigator
Flametiger200
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Danielle
Con (against)
Winning
6 Points

Homosexual sex is more harmful than heterosexual sex

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 2 votes the winner is...
Danielle
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/6/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 794 times Debate No: 92404
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (2)
Votes (2)

 

Flametiger200

Pro

I debated this before, but the debate didn't turn out so good. So I'll give a another shot.

I'll be arguing that homosexual sex is is much more harmful/riskier than heterosexual sex.
Danielle

Con

Pro (as the instigator making a positive claim) has the burden of proof.

He must prove that homosexual sex is more harmful (not equally harmful) than heterosexual sex.

Homosexual: a person who is sexually attracted to people of their own sex; a.k.a. gay or lesbian [1]
Heterosexual: a person who is sexually attracted to people of the opposite sex; a.k.a. straight person [2]

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Flametiger200

Pro

Thank you for accepting.

Homosexual sex is more harmful than heterosexual sex due to the fact that Homosexual men are more prone to stds due to the fact that they have anal sex MUCH more than the average heterosexual couples. Yes I know. Heterosexuals have analysis sex too, but Homosexuals due MUCH more.

Std statistics prove it. http://www.cdc.gov...

Also gay men are 17 times more likely to have anal cancer due to anal sex they have. http://www.cdc.gov...

http://www.cancer-network.org...

This must also mean that homosexuals have MUCH more anal sex than the average heterosexual. http://www.cdc.gov...

I'm not saying that all homosexuals participate in anal, but you can't deny the fact MOST do.

I also find it incredibly inaccurate and dishonest when liberals or Huffington post/buzzfeed articles make the false claim that homosexuals rarely have anal sex or that heterosexuals do it more, just to make gays look good for political reasons only.

If gays rarely had anal sex then explain the incredibly high std rate.

Harvard Medical Professor, Dr. William Haseltine did a study indicating that about 90% of gays have engaged in rectal intercourse, and about two-thirds do it regularly. In a 6-month long study of daily sexual diaries,"gays averaged 110 sex partners and 68 rectal encounters a year.

This makes MUCH more sense as to why their std rates are so incredibly high.

Now for lesbians.

Lesbians are also at higher risk for STDs and other health problems than heterosexuals."However, the health consequences of lesbianism are less well documented than for male homosexuals. This is partly because the devastation of AIDS has caused male homosexual activity to draw the lion"s share of medical attention. But it is also because there are fewer lesbians than gay men,"and there is no evidence that lesbians practice the same extremes of same-sex promiscuity as gay men. The lesser amount of medical data does not mean, however, that female homosexual behavior is without recognized pathology. Much of the pathology is associated with heterosexual activity by lesbians.

studies "demonstrates that WSW [women who have sex with women] are more likely than non- WSW to engage in recognized HIV risk behaviours such as IDU [intravenous drug use], sex work, sex with a bisexual man, and sex with a man who injects drugs, confirming previous reports."

Bacterial vaginosis, Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, heavy cigarette smoking, alcohol abuse, intravenous drug use, and prostitution were present in much higher proportions among female homosexual practitioners.

http://womenshealth.gov...
http://factsaboutyouth.com...
Danielle

Con

Thanks, Pro. I look forward to an interesting debate.

1. Homosexual men do engage in anal sex more often than heterosexuals. However anal sex among homosexuals is not inherently more dangerous. It is only more dangerous because gay men have higher rates of STDs, which brings me to my next point.

2. STDs can largely be prevented by using protection. Laboratory studies have demonstrated that latex condoms provide an essentially impermeable barrier to particles the size of STD pathogens [1]. They are over 98 percent effective. Ergo, assuming both homosexuals and heterosexuals in controlled environments are having sex (wearing condoms), they will be equally protected against STDs. Condoms do not favor one demographic over the other.

A 2010 Journal of Sexuality study found that if we were to define "gay sex" as non-vaginal sex, specifically oral and anal sex, then anytime two heterosexual people have oral or anal sex (not to mention BDSM or kink or group sex or role playing or masturbation), they are engaging in the very same activities that qualify as gay sex [2]. For instance more than 1/5 women engage in anal sex. Why is a blow job or anal sex inherently more dangerous amongst gays than straights? It's not.

High-risk groups for STDs include anyone who, within the past 10 years, has engaged in intravenous drug use, resided in Haiti or Central Africa, received multiple blood transfusions, or who is a hemophiliac or a regular sex partner of any of these people - not just homosexuals. I would argue there are high risk groups that extend beyond general sexual preference. Gay people who use protection will have INFINITELY less STDs than gay people who do not use protection, thus there are other variables to consider aside from sexuality.

3. Most importantly, lesbians qualify as homosexuals and homosexuals are the (sexuality) demographic with the least amount of STDs. Consider the fact that 88,000 women in the U.S. were diagnosed with the STD pelvic inflammatory disease [3] and out of those cases, 2 were lesbians [4]. In other words, lesbians account for about 0.0022727272727273% of those cases. The thing is, a penis is more likely to spread STDs than a vagina. That's not bias, that's clear biology and scientific fact. A penis + vagina and a penis + penis both = higher STD rates. Vagina + vagina does not [4].

Bisexual women are 3x more likely to have STDs than lesbians [5]. Indeed lots of government research has been done proving that bisexual women who have sex with men are up to 17% of greater risk for STIs than their lesbian peers [6]. Again this is due to basic biology and the way disease is spread. Sex is safer when none of your partner"s bodily fluids (vaginal secretions, breast milk or blood - including menstruation) enter your body. This is a biological fact [7]. It's easier to spread/transmit/insert fluid and other organisms with a penis; a penis penetrates which makes it easier to swap bacteria and viruses. The risk for STDs among lesbians is lower than sex involving a man because less bodily fluids are exchanged between women.

Therefore, at the very best, this resolution only applies to 1/2 the homosexual population - gay men.

But lesbians qualify as homosexuals, and lesbian sex is safer than heterosexual sex. Thus Pro has not fulfilled his burden.

4. Another thing to consider about lesbians is that if/when they do use penetration in sex, they might use sex toys instead of a real penis. While a heterosexual man (or woman) with an STD risks transmitting their STD, lesbians can use toys in place of real body parts, and toys don't have STDs.

5. Heterosexual sex poses the risk of pregnancy. Pregnancy carries with it a plethora of possible health related issues and complications [8]. Gay sex does not yield the possibility of pregnancy or any of the related problems.

I look forward to seeing where this debate takes us. Thanks again!

[1] http://www.cdc.gov...
[2] http://www.huffingtonpost.com...
[3] http://womenshealth.gov...
[4] http://fallacyfindings.blogspot.com...
[5] https://www.stdcheck.com...
[6] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
[7] https://www.avert.org...
[8] https://www.nichd.nih.gov...
Debate Round No. 2
Flametiger200

Pro

1. "Homosexual men do engage in anal sex more often than heterosexuals. However anal sex among homosexuals is not inherently more dangerous. It is only more dangerous because gay men have higher rates of STDs"

Yes, but STDs is not the only reason as to why gay sex is harmful. Since gay couples tend to have anal sex much more than straight couples they tend to have more anal tears, anal leakage and anal cancer than straight couples, thus being another reason as to why it's more harmful than heterosexual sex.

2. "STDs can largely be prevented by using protection. Laboratory studies have demonstrated that latex condoms provide an essentially impermeable barrier to particles the size of STD pathogens [1]. They are over 98 percent effective. Ergo, assuming both homosexuals and heterosexuals in controlled environments are having sex (wearing condoms), they will be equally protected against STDs. Condoms do not favor one demographic over the other."

You're right, but you see...the problem there is that the majority of gay men don't use condoms.

There was a new survey conduced that found that the overwhelming majority of gay and"bisexual"men didn't use a condom the last time they had anal sex.

Over 3,100 men participated in the survey, which asked a variety of questions concerning sex, sexual health and relationships.
The study found that 72 percent of respondents said they didn't use condoms the last time they had anal sex. http://www.lgbtqnation.com...

Another study was done by CDC researcher Dawn Smith who has found that only 16 percent of men who have sex with men reported consistent condom use during the study period.
https://www.queerty.com...

"A 2010 Journal of Sexuality study found that if we were to define "gay sex" as non-vaginal sex, specifically oral and anal sex, then anytime two heterosexual people have oral or anal sex (not to mention BDSM or kink or group sex or role playing or masturbation), they are engaging in the very same activities that qualify as gay sex [2]. For instance more than 1/5 women engage in anal sex. Why is a blow job or anal sex inherently more dangerous amongst gays than straights? "

I somewhat agree with this point, but when I say gay sex I usually mean 2 people of the same gender having sex, and when I say straight sex I usually mean 2 people of the opposite gender having sex. I don't define straight and gay sex based on what they do in bed. So when gay couples are having sex THAT is gay sex...when straight couples are having sex THAT'S straight sex.
But you see, the problem with gay sex is that gays have no choice but to have either anal or oral. It's dangerous for them because it's the only options they have. That's one of the reasons they have a higher std rate.

"High-risk groups for STDs include anyone who, within the past 10 years, has engaged in intravenous drug use, resided in Haiti or Central Africa, received multiple blood transfusions, or who is a hemophiliac or a regular sex partner of any of these people - not just homosexuals. I would argue there are high risk groups that extend beyond general sexual preference. Gay people who use protection will have INFINITELY less STDs than gay people who do not use protection, thus there are other variables to consider aside from sexuality."

Yes, there are other high risk groups of contacting STDs, but you have to remember that STDs is called SEXUAL transmitted disease for a reason. The most common way to contact STDs is through sex, not intravenous drug use or visiting hati.

In fact according to the CDC gay sexual contact is the riskiest way to contact STDs.
http://www.cdc.gov...

Gay people who use protection will have a lower chance of contacting STDs, but it's too bad that the majority don't use protection. There are other variables, but sex is the most common way (gay sex to be exact).

3. "Most importantly, lesbians qualify as homosexuals and homosexuals are the (sexuality) demographic with the least amount of STDs." Gay men also qualify as homosexuals and they're the one's with a higher risk of STDs therefore, homosexuals at still at risk.

Consider the fact that 88,000 women in the U.S. were diagnosed with the STD pelvic inflammatory disease" and out of those cases, 2 were lesbians [4]. In other words, lesbians account for about 0.0022727272727273% of those cases.

Just because lesbians have are at a lower risk of pelvic inflammatory disease doesn't really mean that they're more immune to stds.

Lesbians are at a higher risk of catching BV than heterosexual women. http://womenshealth.gov...

"It's easier to spread/transmit/insert fluid and other organisms with a penis; a penis penetrates which makes it easier to swap bacteria and viruses. The risk for STDs among lesbians is lower than sex involving a man because less bodily fluids are exchanged between women."

I'm not so sure about that. I'd say that biology tells us it's just as risky to catch stds from a vagina. A penis starts off pretty dry in the beginning, but when women are horny they have TONS of vaginal fluids flowing out, so I'd say it's just as easy to swap bacteria between a man and a woman. Unless the man has been having homosexual sex, then the risk of a man penatrating a women isn't very high.

"The risk for STDs among lesbians is lower than sex involving a man because less bodily fluids are exchanged between women."

I don't think that's true. Especially when women maturbate or even while they're horny or orgasm.

According to an American sex guru and co-author of the original G-spot book. At a recent conference, she told said"that in most cases, the amount of fluid secreted is usually around 'half a coffee cupful' for women. http://www.netdoctor.co.uk...

That's quite a enough for lesbians to contact Stds.

Anyways, the main reason as to why there are less lesbian std reports are due to the fact that the health consequences of lesbianism are less well documented than for male homosexuals. This is partly because the devastation of AIDS has caused male homosexual activity to draw the lion"s share of medical attention. But it is also because there are fewer lesbians than gay men.

http://www.encyclopedia.com...

So we can't really say whether or not lesbian sex is as harmful until it's studied and looked into more like homosexual and heterosexual sex.

4. "Another thing to consider about lesbians is that if/when they do use penetration in sex, they might use sex toys instead of a real penis. While a heterosexual man (or woman) with an STD risks transmitting their STD, lesbians can use toys in place of real body parts, and toys don't have STDs."

Actually, lesbians still have a higher rate of stds then heterosexuals, but a lower rate than gay men.
The reason for this isn't due to lesbian sex, but it's because, Study after study documents that the overwhelming majority of self-described lesbians have had sex with men. In fact Australian researchers at an STD clinic found that only 7 percent of their lesbian sample had never had sexual contact with a male.
Skinner, et al., Abstract; Ferris, et al. p. 581; James Price, et al., p. 90

Consequently, the lesbians" median number of male partners was TWICE that of exclusively heterosexual women.

I'm running out of characters so just copy and paste this on Google, download the pdf and read it below.

Katherine Fethers, et al., "Sexually transmitted infections and risk behaviours in women who have sex with women,"Sexually Transmitted Infections, 76(5): 345-349, p. 348 (2000).

Anyways my point is that women who identify as lesbian are actually at a higher risk of contracting STDS then straight women, not because of the lesbian sex but because they tend to surprisingly have more sex with men (heterosexual, bi sexual, gay and drug users) than heterosexual women.

So even the average lesbian has a higher risk of transmitting stds than the average heterosexual.

5. "Heterosexual sex poses the risk of pregnancy. Pregnancy carries with it a plethora of possible health related issues and complications [8]. Gay sex does not yield the possibility of pregnancy or any of the related problems."

Well according to the CDC only 600 women die each year of pregnancy in the U.S http://www.cdc.gov...

While there are around 19-20 MILLION new std cases per year and 10s of thousands of people dying from HIV ALONE per year. Imagine the number if we'd combine ALL stds.

The chances of you dying from preganacy are so low compared to some STDs.

Plus. Having a child has a plus side for most people at least.

We can't say the same for Stds.

So to me the "risk" of getting pregnant beats the risks of homosexual sex.
Danielle

Con

1. Pro says that gay men have anal sex more often, thus are at greater risk for anal problems. Two issues with this. First, I've already pointed out that lesbians are half the homosexual population (and they don't have anal sex). So if we combine lesbians with gay men, then on balance, gay and straight people have about the same amount of anal sex, therefore this ratio would be negated.

Second, Pro has not proven that gay sex is more harmful; he's proven that anal sex can be harmful - but is not always. Not all gay sex includes anal sex. Gay men engage in other sexual acts. Further, Pro's argument is that having more anal sex = more potential for harm, NOT that gay sex is more harmful. After all, if a gay or lesbian couple never had anal sex, or had it less often than a straight couple, it wouldn't be the gay sex that was harmful, but the frequency of anal sex which is not based on sexuality.

2. I pointed out that STIs can largely be prevented by condoms. Pro says that many gay men don't use condoms. Ergo, Pro is arguing that irresponsible sex is dangerous, NOT gay sex. If you have a lot of sexual partners without protection, that is dangerous regardless of sexuality. However the resolution is not "Gay men are more promiscuous" or "Gay men have more anal sex" which are both true. Instead the resolution is simply about gay vs. straight sex, and there's no reason to assume that gay sex automatically equals sex without protection. This could easily be ratified by more gay people using protection, so it is not inherent to homosexuality.

My opponent claims that gays have higher STD rates because they are forced to have anal and oral sex. I've already explained that lesbians do not have high rates of STDs and account for 1/2 of the homosexual population. Still, the reason gay men have high rates of STDs is because they do not fear pregnancy, so tend to be more careless when it comes to protection. This is not based on one's sexuality though but their own preferences on caution.

To clarify, Pro's source by the CDC does NOT say that gay sex is the riskiest way to get AIDS. The link says that by demographic, gay men have the highest rate of AIDS. Once again (this is my main argument in this debate) just because more gay men have AIDS than straight men, on balance, does not mean that gay sex itself is the problem. Unsafe sex is the problem. Pro says "It's too bad more gays don't use protection," which admits that if using protection, the risk factor becomes negligible between straight and gay sex.

3. My opponent has argued that BV (bacterial vaginosis) occurs more in lesbians. The source he posts admits, "The reason for this is unknown." If the reason for this is unknown, then Pro cannot attribute the reason to gay sex.

Pro has tried to say that lesbians might have more bacterial vaginosis than straight women on balance (although the link also included BISEXUAL women, who also have sex with men...). First, BV is one of the most benign diseases you can get and many do not qualify it as an STD at all [1]. In fact, BV has been found in virgins who have never had sex. It can be sexually transmitted, but it doesn't have to be, so this statistic is moot because the reason for BV cannot be pinned on sex. Second, the studies that show this have been demonstrated to use horrible sampling for their data, and those results have been largely discredited among peer review anyway [2, 3].

Pro has failed to mention straight women have more herpes, HPV, crabs, gonorrhea, syphilis and AIDS than lesbians. There are two reasons for this. One, penises make it easier to spread disease. Pro contests this, but more about that in a second. Second, lesbians tend to be in monogamous and long-term relationships compared to their heterosexual peers [4]; in other words they have less sexual partners.

While gay men tend to be promiscuous, lesbians tend to be the opposite. That's essentially why I accepted this debate: to demonstrate that conservatives fraudulently suggest "gay sex" is dangerous which isn't true. Unsafe sex is dangerous, and half the gay population (lesbians) are not sleeping around or acquiring high rates of disease [5].

It's very common knowledge that lesbians have significantly less sex than gay men [6]. For Pro to discount half of the homosexual population in this debate would be dishonest.

4. Pro claims that lesbians have more STDs and more sex with men than straight women which is absurd. Just because sexuality is fluid and some lesbians enjoy sex with men (some straight women enjoy sex with women) doesn't mean that on balance, lesbians have more sex with men. While Pro cites the page of a book that none of us have access to, I took the liberty of Googling the source. It came up on "conversion therapy" sites for homophobic Christians such as factsaboutyouth.com [7].

In other words, I will assume the research is problematic and heavily biased, but here's an even more important point: Pro claims the fact that lesbians "have more sex with men" puts them at greater risk. But why would that put them at greater risk, unless Pro concedes that penises make it easy to spread disease? Pro cannot have both. He either has to concede that it's easier to spread disease through penises, or drop the point that "lesbians have more sex with men" (which hasn't been conclusively proven) because if penises aren't an issue, then this doesn't matter and it's a moot point.

5. Pro claims that only 600 women die from pregnancy each year in the U.S. It's very convenient for Pro to limit this discussion to the U.S. with all of our western medical advances. Unfortunately the global statistics do not yield such a pretty picture. Over 303,000 women died from pregnancy complications last year [7]. It's not looking so great in the U.S. either. Whereas 7.2 women died per 100,000 births in 1987, that number swelled to 17.8 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2009 and 2011 [8]. More than 800 women die every day from pregnancy or childbirth related causes [9].

The majority of sexually transmitted diseases do not kill you [10] therefore the number of people who die from pregnancy/childbirth every year FAR outnumbers the amount of people who die from STDs (whom are not all gay). Ergo, pregnancy is more dangerous than STDs and pregnancy can only result from heterosexual sex - not homosexual sex. Most STDs are treatable and many are curable.

Conclusion

Science doesn't support the argument that gay sex causes disease. It does support the argument that unsafe sex causes disease. Unsafe sex is not limited or inherently related to one particular sexuality. If you have safe gay sex, you'll be fine. If you have unsafe straight sex, you might not be fine. Both gay and straight people can have the same amount of sex and the same type of sex (anal, oral, etc.). Responsible people will be safe whereas irresponsible people will be endangered. Websites that talk about how to prevent STDs do not say to inhibit gay sex - they say to practice safe sex, regardless of type [10].

Lesbians make up 1/2 the gay population and have safer sex habits (less partners, less possibility of transmission). Numbers show that lesbians have less STDs. Nevertheless, STDs are mostly curable and treatable whereas pregnancy and childbirth can kill you. More people die from things related to heterosexuality (pregnancy) each year than gay sex.

[1] http://www.aafp.org...
[2] http://tinyurl.com...
[3] http://cid.oxfordjournals.org...
[4] http://tinyurl.com...
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org...
[6] http://www.samesame.com.au...
[7] http://www.who.int...
[8] http://www.scientificamerican.com...
[9] https://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
Flametiger200

Pro

1. You've pointed out that out that lesbians are half the population of homosexuals, and thats one of you're problems.
According to The Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law, a sexual orientation law think tank, released a study in April 2011 estimating based on its research that 1.7 percent of American adults identify as gay or lesbian, while another 1.8 percent identify as bisexual. Drawing on information from four recent national and two state-level population-based surveys, the analyses suggest that there are more than 8 million adults in the US who are lesbian, gay, or bisexual, comprising 3.5% of the adult population. Of men, 2.2% identify as gay and an additional 1.4% as bisexual. Of women, 1.1% identify as lesbian and an additional 2.2% as bisexual.
http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu...

So there are most likely more homosexual men than homosexual women, so if we were to combine homosexuals, gay men are actually the majority compared to lesbians, therefore the ratio of homosexuals having the most anal sex would still be in favor to them. So the ratio wouldn't really be negated. If the ratios were equal then why would heterosexuals still have a lower std and anal disease rate?

Ive proven that gay sex is more harmful due to the fact that gay men engage in more anal sex than heterosexuals.
Ive proven that both gay sex AND anal sex is harmful. if a gay man has anal sex with ANOTHER MAN he is STILL engaging in gay sex. just because he's having anal with another MAN doesn't mean it isn't gay sex, and since GAY anal SEX is at an incredibly higher risk of danger than heterosexual sex Ive proven that gay sex is more harmful.

"After all, if a gay or lesbian couple never had anal sex, or had it less often than a straight couple, it wouldn't be the gay sex that was harmful, but the frequency of anal sex which is not based on sexuality."

hmmm... well too bad con is speaking hypothetically and not factually, a gay couple who don't have or not having as much anal sex as heterosexual couples is pretty rare, and doesn't apply to most homosexuals. like i said. Anal sex or sex in general IS based on sexuality of the sex, having any type of sex with a man qualifies as gay sex. if a gay man has anal sex with another man they are participating in gay sex, since gay men tend to do it more frequently than heterosexuals my point still stands. gay sex his more harmful than straight sex.

2. "I pointed out that STIs can largely be prevented by condoms. Pro says that many gay men don't use condoms. Ergo, Pro is arguing that irresponsible sex is dangerous, NOT gay sex." you're correct the STD rates of homosexuals will go down for homosexuals if the majority of them used condoms. The problem is that condoms are only 70% effective for gay men.
http://www.catie.ca...
http://www.pridesource.com...

while its around 80-90% effective (or higher)for heterosexuals https://www.guttmacher.org...

so even if both homosexuals and heterosexuals were to use condoms gay sex would still be riskier than heterosexual sex.
therefore my point still stands.

"I've already explained that lesbians do not have high rates of STDs and account for 1/2 of the homosexual population."

I've rebutted con's claim by showing her a study done by the Sydney Sexual Health Centre in Australia that included several doctors and consisted of 1432 WSW who claimed to exclusively only have sex with women or haven't have sex with a man, but rather a woman in the past 12 months. The study also consisted of 1423 WSM women that reported never having sex with a woman.

The results of the study were that Bacterial vaginosis (BV) was
significantly more common among WSW. Genital herpes and genital warts were common in both groups,
although warts were significantly less common in WSW.

It also stated that the prevalence of hepatitis C was significantly greater in WSW

WSW were more
likely to report previous sexual contact with a homo/bisexual man or with an injecting drug user than heterosexual women (which already puts them at a higher risk).

Here's the link to the study again.
Katherine Fethers, et al., "Sexually transmitted infections and risk behaviours in women who have sex with women,"Sexually Transmitted Infections, 76(5): 345-349, p. 348 (2000).

Copy and paste it on Google and click on the the link that's been cited 242 times.

The reason as to why this info and research isn't out there isn't because of scientific research. I've stated it's because of the LACK of scientific research. Lesbians certainly do have a lower rate than gay men, but I wouldn't take that giant leap and say that itd. It's lower than heterosexuals. Lesbians do have sex with gay and
Bi sexual men more than heterosexuals. So until the study is taken as seriously as heterosexual and gay STDs we can't say too much about it.

Con claims that the main reason gay men have high std rates is because they're not afraid of pregnancy lool. I think that's a little silly. Obviously they can't get pregnant, but I wouldn't say that's the main reason.

Con is right about them being more careless about sex, but also fails to mention that The average HIV transmission rate during anal sex is estimated to be 18 times higher than the rate during vaginal intercourse.

Homosexuals are in a higher risk of hiv/aids due to the fact that they have GAY anal SEX more than heterosexuals, and gay anal sex is MUCH more riskier and harmful BECAUSE of the high STD rates and anal defects that heterosexuals don't usually face.

So my point still stands gay sex is still riskier/more harmful than heterosexual sex.

Con continues to claim that lesbians are half of the gay population. It's been rebutted.

The CDC won't say it directly (probably due to political correctness) but if we use logic and common sense we can figure out that gay sex (in America at least, and most parts of Europe) is the number 1 transmitter of STDs. HIV/AIDS is a SEXUAL transmitted disease. If HIV/AIDS is transmitted the most through SEX wouldn't it be logical to assume homosexual men transmitt it the most to others due to the fact that their the ones who carry the disease the most? It only makes logical sense to say hiv/aids is transmitted mostly by gay sexual contact the most. I mean....what else could it be? Heterosexuals can't be the ones transmitting it the most Sexually.
In fact new cases of HIV from the CDC are from women who have sex with Bi sexual men.
http://nypost.com...

Gay sex it's self isn't the problem. You are correct. But gay sex is definitely PART of the problem. If unsafe sex was the only problem then homosexuals and heterosexuals would have around the same rate of stds. But that's not the case. Homosexuals still have an INCREDIBLY higher rate, so this should give anyone a clue that gay sex is also part of the problem.

A study was done showing that 70% of women didn't use condoms when having sex with men.

I said it's too bad, because it would definitely lower the risks of stds between homosexuals, but not as much as heterosexuals.

3. Bacterial infection may not be an STD, and the cause isn't completely understood, but certain activities, such as unprotected sex or frequent douching, increase your risk.
http://www.mayoclinic.org...

Just because BV can happen to virgins doesn't mean it still can't be pinned on sex. HIV can happen to virgins (incredibly rare) but does that mean HIV can't be pinned on sex? Besides. The virgin can with BV can still have sex and transmit it.

4.
4. Well according to the study that I showed that consisted of thousands of women and many doctors. The majority of lesbians have had more sex with homosexual, Bi sexual, and drug users than heterosexual women. Which puts them at a higher risk of STDs than normal heterosexual women. Unless if con comes up with an even better cited medical source like I've done debunking that study, then I guess my claim is more reliable than cons.

I'll cite it one last time. Katherine Fethers, et al., "Sexually transmitted infections and risk behaviours in women who have sex with women,"Sexually Transmitted Infections, 76(5): 345-349, p. 348 (2000).

Second, the studies that show this have been demonstrated to use horrible sampling for their data, and those results have been largely discredited among peer review anyway [2, 3].

Hmm? Con has brought up yet again another logical fallacy. Didn't you even read your links? None of it says that about BV. Or lesbians. it has never been discredited either. In fact. Most of it actually support what I say. Especially you're Oxford link.

In my arguments I said lesbian women have a higher chance of getting BV.

Your link says. Bacterial vaginosis is common among women in general and even more so among women with female partners.

I said that we can't really assume that lesbians have little to no risk of STDs because of the extreme lack of research on this subject.

Your link says WSW should not be presumed to be at low or no risk for STIs based on sexual orientation, (which is exactly what con has been doing.) Then later goes on to say Although extensive data are available regarding sexually transmitted infections (STIs) among men who have sex with men, relatively little has been published about STI prevalence and risks among other sexual and gender minorities, including women who have sex with women (WSW). Health care providers and their female clients would benefit from increased knowledge of STI risks and testing guidance for women who have same-sex partners.

I claimed lesbians or WSW were most likely to be Hiv positive due to the fact that they do more Hiv risk behaviors than heterosexual women. Like drug injections, and having sex with gay and Bi sexual men.

Your link claims that More common is the potential for WSW to acquire HIV through other modes, including injection drug use and sexual contact with high-risk male partners.

And then cites other links like, http://ajph.aphapublications.org...

And http://www.tandfonline.com...

5. I'm running out of characters so I'll make this quick.

303,0000 women died of pregnancy last year. 1.2 million people died of hiv/aids in 2014. Hiv/aids is an std, so that counts as an std death. Therefore 1.2 million+ people died of stds. If you're in a developed country the chances of you dying of pregnancy is near 1% if you have hiv/aids you WILL die sooner or later unless you're filthy rich like magic Johnson, unfortunately not very many people are as rich as hum to pay for the expensive medication.

Being pregnant has a plus side. Most people are delighted to have children. We can't say the same for stds. Therefore the risk of being pregnant is as bad as the risk of catching a disease.

Science doesn't exactly say that gay sex is harmful, but it does say heterosexual sex is safer. It'll be dishonest to say otherwise.

I've gone over most of con's conclusion.

Since I'm running out of characters I'll end hear.

Thank you for the debate con.

Vote pro
Danielle

Con

Thanks again to Flametiger200 for this discussion.

1. Pro completely changed what #1 was about. In the last round, I explained that anal sex was prone to injury regardless of who was having it. Thus while gay men engage in anal sex more often, the risk has nothing to do with "gay sex" but anal sex which is not synonymous with gay sex despite the correlation.

My opponent suggests that there are more gay men than lesbians. That's true but the figure is negligible. Plus, while more men identify as gay, the overwhelming majority of people who identify as bisexual are women. So bisexual women + lesbians have a higher population than gay men [1], and Pro hasn't proven that bisexual women have a lot of STDs (or that lesbians have).

2. Pro argues that condoms are only 70% effective for gay men but 80% effective for heterosexuals. When used properly (which is key!) condoms are actually 98% effective or more [2]. However Pro's source suggesting that condoms are less effective for gay men say that it's because gay men use them inconsistently and improperly [3]. Extend my argument about how ANY unsafe or unprotected sex (including inconsistent or improper use of condoms) is harmful regardless of one's sexuality.

3. My opponent repeats his argument on lesbians with higher rates of BV which ignores the vast majority of my rebuttals from the last round. Extend my argument that BV is not necessarily transmitted through sex, so this contention is completely irrelevant. Extend my argument that this bacteria is practically harmless. Extend my argument that heterosexual women have far more STDs overall (which I sourced in previous rounds). Extend my arguments on how lesbians tend to be less promiscuous which Pro dropped.

4. On his source, Pro writes, "Copy and paste it on Google and click on the the link that's been cited 242 times." But in the last round I've explained how this source was used on biased Christian websites that promote "conversion therapy" and other voodoo. He does not explain why this research is valid or a responsible sample study.

It's 100% inaccurate to say that lesbians have more sex with men than straight women. If that were true (lesbians having sex with men) they would not be lesbians but bisexual.

Furthermore, I argued that Pro has to concede that it's easier to spread disease through penises, or drop the point that "lesbians have more sex with men" (which hasn't been conclusively proven) because if penises aren't an issue, then this doesn't matter and it's a moot point. But it appears that my opponent concedes and accepts that it's easier to spread STDs through penises than vaginas.

My opponent repeats that gay sex is the greatest way to get AIDS. Once again, there is absolutely nothing about gay sex that makes one inherently prone to AIDS. Rather, the transmission of AIDS is highest among gay men because gay men have higher rates of the disease due to unprotected sex. HOWEVER, if gay men (or anyone) was having protected sex -- then one's sexuality would be completely irrelevant. Moreover, Pro failed to respond to the fact that AIDS like many other STDs are curable and treatable which was my #5 point.

5. While more people have died from AIDS than pregnancy, the majority of those who died reside in third world countries like Africa where they have no treatment or resources for sex protection. More importantly, most of these people are born with AIDS that is passed on to them, rather than contracting it sexually [4]. Scientists have virtually found a cure for AIDS, which is the only STD that Pro was able to exemplify was truly dangerous. This is a moot point as the treatment for AIDS is so advanced and a cure will soon be the norm [5]. Extend my arguments that pregnancy and childbirth are more dangerous than STIs.

Conclusion

I will simply copy and paste my last round's conclusion since it's the same.

Science doesn't support the argument that gay sex causes disease. It does support the argument that unsafe sex causes disease.

Unsafe sex is not limited or inherently related to one particular sexuality.

If you have safe gay sex, you'll be fine. If you have unsafe straight sex, you might not be fine.

Both gay and straight people can have the same amount of sex and the same type of sex (anal, oral, etc.). Responsible people will be safe whereas irresponsible people will be endangered. Websites that talk about how to prevent STDs do not say to inhibit gay sex - they say to practice safe sex, regardless of type.

Lesbians make up 1/2 the gay population and have safer sex habits (less partners, less possibility of transmission). Numbers show that lesbians have less STDs. Nevertheless, STDs are mostly curable and treatable - including AIDS - whereas pregnancy and childbirth can kill you. More people die from things related to heterosexuality (pregnancy) each year than gay sex.


[1] http://www.advocate.com...
[2] http://www.factsaboutcondoms.com...
[3] http://www.pridesource.com...
[4] http://www.people.com...
[5] http://ww2.kqed.org...
Debate Round No. 4
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by ThinkBig 11 months ago
ThinkBig
Please ignore this:

"Con also points out that more people die from childbearing than from hiv/aids, a point that went uncontested."
Posted by ThinkBig 11 months ago
ThinkBig
RFD

Both debaters shown excellent conduct and grammar. Sources were also tied.

The resolution to this debate is Homosexual sex is more harmful than heterosexual sex. In order for the resolution to be affirmed, Pro needs to show that homosexual sex is significantly more harmful (not equally harmful) than heterosexual sex. Pro also needs to show that it is the homosexual behavior itself that is harmful as opposed to other varying factors.

Pro argues that homosexual sex is more harmful due to an increase risk of STDs, and that homosexuals typically have more sex than heterosexuals.

Con negates this by showing that it is the unsafe sex that causes the STDs, not the homosexual sex itself.

Con also points out that more people die from childbearing than from hiv/aids, a point that went uncontested.

Con won arguments overall by providing good evidence that gay sex is not inherently harmful and Pro being unable to produce a reason why gay sex is inherently harmful.

Excellent debate!
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Udel 11 months ago
Udel
Flametiger200DanielleTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro argues that gay men have more STDs than straight people which is true. Con says that lesbians count as homosexual and they do not have as many STDs or promiscuity as gay men. Pro's arguments seem limited to gay men. Con says that if gay men used protection, their sex would be safe. pro says gay men don't use protection often and Con says that's irrelevant because it still shows unsafe sex and not gay sex is the problem. Pro says condoms break for gay men and Con shows that Pro's source suggests gay men do not use the condoms properly or often, which is why they are ineffective. So far Pro has only proven that unsafe sex without condoms is dangerous because that is what transmit disease. If a gay couple with no STD had sex then they would have no danger. If a straight or gay couple had anal sex, they would be in the same amount of danger. Con proved the danger is not determined by sexuality but the type of sex and type (or lack) of protection.
Vote Placed by ThinkBig 11 months ago
ThinkBig
Flametiger200DanielleTied
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: RFD in comments.