The Instigator
KingofHarlem
Pro (for)
Losing
1 Points
The Contender
nikidavis
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Homosexuality: A Mental Disorder?

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...
nikidavis
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/13/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 844 times Debate No: 52342
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (3)

 

KingofHarlem

Pro

Some things are self-evident which is no doubt why over the course of history gay marriage has never took root and flourished. We hear of instances of it in Greek and Roman culture, but never does it become dominant (with the possible exception of Sparta).Meanwhile, we're now told it's suddenly a basic civil right gays have been denied all along. It's hardly that, for if it were we'd have heard about it the way we hear about women's suffrage and the anti- slavery campaign. No protest movement for gay marriage at any time in history; not even a casual mention of it by the great gays like Oscar Wilde. It seems it never even crossed their mind.Worse still, when given the right to marry gays don't marry. In Massachusetts where same-sex marriage has been law for almost 10 years less than 5% of gay men have married. What do they know that we don't?So if not something gays actually want -- and will use --why are they campaigning for it? This question was answered many years ago in the gay authored book "After the Ball: How America Will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 1990's", by Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen.The book turned out to be the blueprint gay activists would use in their campaign to normalize the abnormal. The goal was to normalize homosexuality to a point where everyone would be having homosexual sex despite their true status. Incidentally, this was the theme of bathhouse culture before the HIV epidemic hit: "Come on down and explore your sexuality." Many heteros did and paid the ultimate price for doing so.
nikidavis

Con

I accept.

"Some things are self-evident which is no doubt why over the course of history gay marriage has never took root and flourished. We hear of instances of it in Greek and Roman culture, but never does it become dominant (with the possible exception of Sparta)."

You could say the same about woman's rights. It didn't come in to play until the 20th century.

"Meanwhile, we're now told it's suddenly a basic civil right gays have been denied all along."

Marriage isn't really a "right" but these gay people have not done anything wrong. They love each other the same way straight people do.

"In Massachusetts where same-sex marriage has been law for almost 10 years less than 5% of gay men have married. What do they know that we don't?"

Do all straight people marry? No. So do all gay people marry? No.

And you also didn't cite your sources.

"The book turned out to be the blueprint gay activists would use in their campaign to normalize the abnormal. The goal was to normalize homosexuality to a point where everyone would be having homosexual sex despite their true status."

Um, I don't think that's what they were doing but if the were, I don't agree.

It's not abnormal, it has been witnessed in hundreds of animal species. Homosexual behaviour has been observed in 1,500 animal species.

We're talking about everything from mammals to crabs and worms. The actual number is of course much higher. Among some animals homosexual behaviour is rare, some having sex with the same gender only a part of their life, while other animals, such as the dwarf chimpanzee, homosexuality is practiced throughout their lives.[1]

[1]
http://www.news-medical.net...
Debate Round No. 1
KingofHarlem

Pro

I was specific -- I noted gay marriage has never been a public demand.

And because gay people "love each other the same way straight people do" is irrelevant. First of all, we don't know this to be the case. Secondly, even if it is, it impacts little on the normalization of homosexuality. Ten years ago after same-sex marriage become law in Massachusetts, the first thing gangs did was use it to get into the schools. They demanded -- and got -- homosexual "friendly" textbooks and curriculum, transgender teachers, gay and straight "youth clubs" etc.

Cannibalism is a characteristic of most species. Should we conclude it's ok if humans eat each other?
nikidavis

Con

"Cannibalism is a characteristic of most species. Should we conclude it's ok if humans eat each other?"

No, because it is hurting other people, and sometimes killing them.

" Ten years ago after same-sex marriage become law in Massachusetts, the first thing gangs did was use it to get into the schools. They demanded -- and got -- homosexual "friendly" textbooks and curriculum, transgender teachers, gay and straight "youth clubs" etc."

Why is the so bad? It is in textbooks because homosexual ya lit his already in society. There is youth groups because homosexual children need support.
Suicide in the LGBT community is a very bad thing. Studies done in 2006 show that suicide is more than 2 times likely than there straight peers.[1]
This is majorly from their family friends and society being against homosexuality. If it was more accepted than this number would drop. this is why they need support.

[1]
http://www.suicidology.org...
Debate Round No. 2
KingofHarlem

Pro

My point about cannibalism was to illustrate how irrelevant and simple-minded the "it appears in all animal species" is.

What about incest, infanticide, filicide (the killing of one's child), patricide (the killing of one's father), matricide? Should we pass laws to allow all these things because each appears in the animal kingdom as well?

And textbooks that show men kissing and petting men are a bad idea. Need I explain why? http://en.wikipedia.org...

We don't need gay activists forcing their way into our schools to set-up their so-called "gay support" groups. If you believe we do, present your evidence that these groups do what they say they do. The evidence they do not, is compelling.

http://www.massresistance.org...
nikidavis

Con

"And textbooks that show men kissing and petting men are a bad idea. Need I explain why? http://en.wikipedia.org...;

And why is that a bad thing. I don't think it should have any kissing (unless high school and above.)

"We don't need gay activists forcing their way into our schools to set-up their so-called "gay support" groups. If you believe we do, present your evidence that these groups do what they say they do. The evidence they do not, is compelling."

They do exactly what they say they do, they provide for teens struggling with their sexuality. They don't force people to be gay. Imagine had homosexual feelings and were struggling with it. You could go to a support group to understand it more.

You have also not said anything about my point on suicide.
Vote con!
Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by KingofHarlem 3 years ago
KingofHarlem
We live by rules and that should not change. Traditional marriage is the rule; I need not defend that no more than I need to point out that male-to-male anal sex -- the sine qua non of male homosexuality -- is morbidly unhealthy. Indeed, after 40 years of gay activism this hasn't changed. Gay males are now 75% of all new HIV cases.

Same-sex marriage promotes the fraudulent notion that left to their own devices, two gay males can lead healthy lives. Perhaps if they never have anal sex. If they do -- whether protected or not -- they're still engaging in a behavior that will most likely kill them before they turn 50

Same-sex marriage activists are in our school teaching young boys homosexuality is cool.

Well, this is as wrong as a thing gets.

Same-sex marriage is social experimentation -- it's "Say, let's marry up and see what happens!" "Let's adopt some kids and see what happens!" "Let's go into the schools and tell kids with identity issues all their identity issues will disappear if they "come out."

Same-sex marriage is about recruitment, make no mistake about it. Once it becomes law the activist uses it as a weapon to get into the schools and recruit.

Neither Obama nor most non-gay supporters of ss grasp the depth of the problem.
Posted by Dan4reason 3 years ago
Dan4reason
In my vote I meant that these typos were on con's side. As said before, pro needs to do a better job of supporting his claim that gay marriage is wrong.
Posted by KingofHarlem 3 years ago
KingofHarlem
YOu guys are correct. I didn't set-up this debate correctly.
Posted by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
I'd feel bad accepting this.

You seriously need to spend the time in your first post actually defending the resolution. What you spent your first post doing was trying to poke holes in any case for gay marriage, which does next to nothing to prove that it's a mental disorder. The latter portion is devoted to showing that normalizing homosexuality in common culture is harmful. I disagree with both of these, but I could accept them both and still be winning this first round just by defining what a mental disorder is and stating that they don't meet that definition.
Posted by medv4380 3 years ago
medv4380
No definition of mental disorder, and no connection of the historical points to how they relate to a mental disorder. You should rewrite this before someone accepts it.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Benshapiro 3 years ago
Benshapiro
KingofHarlemnikidavisTied
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 had some fine arguments and rebuttals, but ultimately they didn't affirm the resolution. It's his burden of proof to do so and hadn't argued why homosexuality is a mental disorder specifically.
Vote Placed by Actionsspeak 3 years ago
Actionsspeak
KingofHarlemnikidavisTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't argue about the resolution and ended up attacking gay support groups, while failing to tie in cannibalism (his most argued point) to his argument. ---- *edit* I'm now taking conduct away from Pro since he posted an additional argument in the comments post-debate.
Vote Placed by Dan4reason 3 years ago
Dan4reason
KingofHarlemnikidavisTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to site his sources and never really explained what about gay marriage was bad. He also failed to establish that it is a mental disorder or that it is abnormal. However I did notice a few typos on Pro's side.