The Instigator
GarretKadeDupre
Pro (for)
Winning
19 Points
The Contender
Magicr
Con (against)
Losing
9 Points

Homosexuality Is A Mental Disorder

Do you like this debate?NoYes-10
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...
GarretKadeDupre
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/28/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 10,527 times Debate No: 29620
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (53)
Votes (7)

 

GarretKadeDupre

Pro

I challenge... anyone! (since drafterman declined the challenge 3 times and proved to be all bark and no bite; YYW also proved to be toothless as well)

Just waiting for acceptance, and I'll formulate my opening arguments sometime in the next 3 days.
Magicr

Con

I accept. BoP appears to lie with Pro as he is is party making the positive claim.

Just a few brief rules I'd like to submit that I don't thing Pro will have a problem with:

1. No abusive or abusively semantic arguments should be counted.
2. Drops count as concessions.
3. No new arguments in the final round.

I look forward to an interesting debate.
Debate Round No. 1
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

Thank you for accepting my debate Magicr, but I do not necessarily agree to any of the terms you presented.

I will now defend my claim that homosexuality is a mental disorder.

According to Wikipedia, a mental disorder is "a psychological pattern or anomaly, potentially reflected in behavior, that is generally associated with distress or disability, and which is not considered part of normal development of a person's culture." When broken down into four separate criteria, it is more easily seen how homosexuality fits this description of mental disorder. These criteria are:

1. Psychological pattern or anomaly
2. Potentially reflected in behavior
3. Generally associated with distress or disability
4. Not considered part of normal development of a person's culture.

Homosexuality fits criterion 1 because it is a psychological anomaly. A psychological anomaly is a psychological trait that deviates from what is standard, normal, or expected. Homosexuality is behavior that deviates from the standard. As the majority of people are heterosexual, and heterosexual activity is the only sexual activity required for the survival of our species, heterosexuality is the standard. So homosexuality fits criterion 1.

Homosexuality fits criterion 2 because it is potentially reflected in behavior. Given that homosexuality can be, and is, reflected through homosexual behavior, such as anal intercourse between two males, this point is not arguable.

Homosexuality fits criterion 3 because it is generally associated with distress. Homosexuals are seven times more likely to commit suicide than heterosexuals. (1) According to the academic, peer-reviewed Journal of Human Sexuality, "a score of mental health conditions in almost every DSM category are present in the general [homosexual] population at rates three or more times greater than in the heterosexual population. These conditions include bipolar disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and schizophrenia, but more predominantly consist of mood disorders, depression, substance abuse, and suicidality." (2) It can be argued that distress among the homosexual population is largely due to social stigma; however, this doesn't change the fact that homosexuality meets criteria 3 by being generally associated with distress.

Homosexuality meets criterion 4 because it is not considered part of normal development in American culture. The laws that have been put in place by society reveals what is considered normal, and only nine out of fifty states have legalized homosexual-marriage. If the majority of society truly considered homosexuality normal, a majority vote would have changed these laws.

In summary, homosexuality meets Wikipedia's criteria for what constitutes a mental disorder. I will now demonstrate how homosexuality fits another definition of mental disorder.

According to Encyclopedia Britannica, a mental disorder is "any illness with significant psychological or behavioral manifestations that is associated with either a painful or distressing symptom or an impairment in one or more important areas of functioning." When broken down into 3 separate criteria, it can be easily demonstrated how homosexuality meets the encyclopedia's definition of a mental disorder. These criteria are:

1. Illness
2. Significant psychological or behavioral manifestations
3. Associated with either a painful or distressing symptom or an impairment in one or more important areas of functioning

Homosexuality meets criterion 1 because it is an illness. 'Illness,' according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is "an unhealthy condition of body or mind." Homosexuality is an unhealthy condition of the mind. At worst, it's a "lethal behavioral addiction", according to Kathleen Melonakos, M.A., R.N. (3) At best, it's a predisposition towards unhealthy behavior, like exceptionally dangerous sexual practices. Homosexual and bisexual men are more severely affected by HIV than any other group in the United States, says the U.S. government; (4) 44 times more likely to be infected than straight men, in fact. The risk for syphilis is even greater. (5) According to the Scientific Advisory Committee of N.A.R.T.H., "[h]omosexuality is not without significant risk to medical, psychological, and relational health." (6) Homosexuality in men is associated with increased psychiatric morbidity, particularly in terms of depression, anxiety disorders, and suicidal behavior. (7)

Homosexuality meets criterion 2 because it has significant behavioral manifestations. This fact is undisputable; anal intercourse between men is a well-known example.

Homosexuality meets criterion 3 because it associated with an impairment in important areas of functioning. One important area of impairment is the ability to survive; homosexuality carries with it a seven-fold increase in the probability that one commits suicide. According to the author of the medical reference book, Saunders Pocket Reference for Nurses, homosexuality is more deadly than smoking, alcoholism, or drug addiction. (3) Men and women in same-sex marriages have a shorter life-span than the general population. (10) The International Journal of Epidemiology says that life expectancy for gay and bisexual men is about sixteen years less than for all men. (9) Furthermore, the risk of life-threatening disease in the homosexual community is greater than the medical risk of any activity for any comparable group. (8)

Another important area where homosexuality is associated with impairment is sexual functioning. By its very nature, homosexuality discourages procreative intercourse, and by extension, the survival of the human species. Also, according to a study performed by the Kinsey Institute, gay men are more likely to suffer erectile dysfunction than heterosexual men. (11)

Yet another impaired area of functioning is parenting. The difficulties confronted by lesbian mothers or gay fathers is similar to those faced by singleparents and divorced households. On top of this is the additional burden of wrestling with the social stigma associated with homosexuality. (14) Also, given that homosexuality is associated with a general elevation of risk for anxiety, mood, and substance use disorders and for suicidal thoughts and plans, (12) it logically follows that homosexuality is associated with an impairment of parenting ability. Furthermore, recreational drug use is more common in gay and lesbian people than in the heterosexual population, and lesbians are at greater risk of alcohol problems than heterosexual women. (13)

I await my opponent's rebuttal.

(1) Gary Remafedi, MD, MPH, Simone French, PhD, Mary Story, PhD, Michael D. Resnick, PhD, and Robert Blum, MD, PhD. The Relationship between Suicide Risk and Sexual Orientation: Results of a Population-Based Study. 1998.
(2) Whitehead, Neil. Homosexualities and Co-Morbidities: Therapeutic Research and Implications. Journal of Human Sexuality 2:124-175, 2010.
(3) http://www.wf-f.org...
(4) http://www.cdc.gov...
(5) Tanzola, Melinda. HIV, Syphilis Risk Quantified in Gay, Bisexual Men. Clinical Psychiatry News (Volume 38, Issue 9).
(6) Journal of Human Sexuality 1, 2009.
(7) Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 32, No. 3, June 2003, pp. 231–242.
(8) Journal of Human Sexuality 1:48, 2009.
(9) International Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 26 No. 3. 1997.
(10) American Journal of Public Health. January 2009, 99(1):133-7.
(11) Bancroft, John. Human Sexuality and its Problems. Philadelphia: Churchill Livingstone, 2009. (p. 328)
(12) Ostrow, MD, PhD, et al. Risk of Psychiatric Disorders Among Individuals Reporting Same-Sex Sexual Partners in the National Comorbidity Survey. American Journal of Public Health, June 2001, Vol. 91, No. 6.
(13) Michael King, MD, et al. Mental health and quality of life of gay men and lesbians in England and Wales. The British Journal of Psychiatry (2003) 183: 552-558

Magicr

Con

Thank you to Garret for instigating this debate.

My opponent has said that he does not wish to agree to any of the terms I suggested in my acceptance. I am not excessively attached to any of those rules, but they do seem to be somewhat standard procedure here on DDO so I am curious as to why he has rejected them with no reason why. More importantly, as my statement concerning the BoP in this debate would have been part of those terms that he chose to “not necessarily agree to” without further comment, we are left to assume. Since he is the instigator and maker of a claim in this debate, I contend that Pro has the BoP, but at this point it’s really up to the voter to decide that.

Now, on to the topic at hand:

Introduction

My opponent has provided two sets of criteria through which we can evaluate whether or not homosexuality is a mental disorder. Because he has the BoP in this debate, my only obligation is negate his claims. If I can demonstrate that at least one criterion in both standards does not apply to homosexuality, then I will have successfully negated the resolution.

In this round I intend to demonstrate that Pro’s case rests on many bare assertions and unsound reasoning.

WIKIPEDIA

1. Psychological pattern or anomaly.

To make things simple and focus the debate, I’m going to concede this point.

2. Potentially reflected in behavior

I concede that homosexuality can be reflected in behavior.

3. Generally associated with distress or disability.

This is likely to be one of the more contentious criterion.

A large problem with this part of Pro’s argument is his assumption that correlation implies causation. He assumes that because one study found that homosexual males in high school are much more likely than heterosexual males in high school to attempt suicide, homosexuality is the cause of this. It should also be noted that Pro slightly distorted the results of the study when he claimed that “Homosexuals are seven times more likely to commit suicide than heterosexuals.” This phrasing failed to mention that the study was only representative of a small age group, that seven figure only applies to males, and the study dealt with attempted suicide, not just actually committing suicide.

But the real problem is this: If Pro wants to argue that a because more students surveyed that were homosexual reported attempting suicide than those that were heterosexual that homosexuality is associated with distress, then, by the same logic, being a heterosexual female can also be associated with distress because more than three times as many heterosexual females in that study reported attempted suicide than heterosexual males. [1].

The reason that homosexual males in high school are more likely to attempt suicide can better be attributed to bullying than to homosexuality. This is evidenced by the fact that homosexual males are more likely to be bullied than heterosexual males, and bullying can lead to depression and suicide. [2][3].

Therefore, it is not homosexuality itself that is associated with distress, but rather bullying and related factors.

Regarding the increased rates of other mental disorders for homosexuals has not been demonstrated to be an effect of homosexuality in any way.

4. Not considered part of normal development of a person’s culture.

First, it should be noted that this debate is not specifically about American culture.


Second, Pro’s assertion that that homosexuality is not considered a normal part of development in American culture because gay marriage is illegal in most states is flawed. The argument against gay marriage is that marriage is between a man and a woman, therefore gay people cannot get married to each other because that is not marriage. This has nothing to do with whether homosexuality is accepted.


Additionally, if Pro’s argument is true, does this mean that homosexuality is not a mental disorder in states that have legalized same-sex marriage?


Nevertheless, numerous cultures throughout history have recognized homosexuality. [4].

Clearly Pro has not proved this criteria to apply to homosexuality.


BRITANNICA

1. Illness.

Once again, Pro commits the fallacy of assuming causation because of correlation.

An analogy:

Pregnancy can be lethal or damaging to the physical health of the mother and can take a toll on her emotional health in some cases, for instance, if the pregnancy is unwanted. Yet, I doubt that my opponent wishes to claim that heterosexuality is an illness because clearly pregnancy is an event that is associated with heterosexuality.

In the same way that heterosexuality is not an illness for causing damaging pregnancies or transferring STDs, homosexuality is not an illness.

2. Significant psychological or behavioral manifestations.

I concede this point.

3. Associated with either a painful or distressing symptom or an impairment in one or more important areas of functioning.

Pro claims that “homosexuality is more deadly than smoking, alcoholism, or drug addiction.” Unfortunately, the source he uses to back up this claim commits many of the same fallacies Pro commits throughout his argument. It is not homosexuality that necessarily causes the deadly things that are discussed.

Another important thing of note is that Pro is misrepresenting his source 10. He uses that source to say that “Men and women in same-sex marriages have a shorter life-span than the general population.”

The study he cited states: “Despite recent marked reduction in mortality among gay men, Danish men and women in same-sex marriages still have mortality rates that exceed those of the general population. The excess mortality is restricted to the first few years after a marriage, presumably reflecting preexisting illness at the time of marriage. Although further study is needed, the claims of drastically increased overall mortality in gay men and lesbians appear unjustified.” [5].

Pro challenges that homosexuality “discourages procreative intercourse, and by extension the survival of the human species.” Given that the majority of people are heterosexual and the Earth’s population is already above 7 billion, the concern that humanity will go extinct is laughable.

Pro’s assumption of causation extends throughout the remainder of the argument. While homosexuals may demonstrate these behaviors to a greater extent than heterosexuals, drawing the conclusion that homosexuality is the cause is a leap that is unjustified. This is certainly true for his arguments concerning parenting. I would also like to point out that his source 14 regarding this point is not listed.

CONCLUSION

I have demonstrated that and how Pro’s argument relies on unfounded ideas and fallacious assumptions about causations.

I have specifically demonstrated that criteria 3 and 4 of the Wikipedia standard and criteria 1 and 3 of the Britannica standard have not been shown to apply to homosexuality meaning that at this point, the resolution is negated.

Sources:

[1]- http://ajph.aphapublications.org...

[2]- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

[3]- http://www.bullyingstatistics.org...

[4]- http://en.wikipedia.org...

[5]- http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...


Debate Round No. 2
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

Thank you, Con, for your well-mannered and professional response. It's refreshing to be able to debate such a controversial topic without being personally attacked. I hope you are not offended by the matter-of-fact manner in which I might argue.

In regards to the rules you suggested, I won't explicitly agree to them because I trust the voters will exercise reasonable discretion in assigning points in their vote. I don't want them to feel pressured in any way.

Now, on to the topic at hand again.

If Con succeeds in negating only one point from both of my first definitions, it is true that those arguments of mine become refuted; however, this does not necessarily determine the winner of this debate because I am free to present new arguments in future rounds.

The third point of my Wikipedia definition was:

3. Generally associated with distress or disability.

Con has tried to nullify my argument on this point by saying that I assume correlation implies causation. Even if this were true, it wouldn't undermine my argument. The fact still remains, unrefuted, that homosexuality is generally associated with distress.

Con says that "it is not homosexuality itself that is associated with distress, but rather bullying and related factors." This is an illogical conclusion. If factors related to homosexuality are associated with distress, then it follows that by extension, homosexuality is associated with distress.

Con says that "the increased rates of other mental disorders for homosexuals has not been demonstrated to be an effect of homosexuality in any way." This is also incorrect. By sheer numbers and association, increased rates of other mental disorders have been demonstrated to be an effect of homosexuality, despite the fact that I concede 'demonstrate' doesn't necessarily mean 'prove.'

Con has implicitly conceded that homosexuality is a mental disorder, and by extension, his entire case, through his phrasing of the previously quoted statement. Nevertheless, I will continue.

The fourth point of my Wikipedia definition was:

4. Not considered part of normal development of a person's culture.

The culture in question was never specified, so I defaulted to the American culture, and my opponent has yet to suggest a different one.

Con claims that the legality of gay marriage "has nothing to do with whether homosexuality is accepted." This is false. Legal recognition of homosexual relationships is the utmost sign of social approval, and the absense of it in spite of the gay rights movement speaks volumes.

Con poses the following question: "does this mean that homosexuality is not a mental disorder in states that have legalized same-sex marriage?" To this, I respond in like fashion: Would schizophrenia cease to be a mental disorder if it were not legally recognized as such?

Con says that numerous cultures throughout history have recognized homosexuality, but this doesn't refute my point. Recognizing homosexuality is not the same as accepting it.

In summary, Con has failed to refute point 4 of the Wikipedia definition.

Point 1 of the Britannica definition was:

1. Illness.

Con argues that pregnancy is an illness according to my standards. Were I to concede this, it would not refute my argument. Pregnancy does not satisfy all the criteria for mental disorder, so Con's analogy misses the point.

This first point remains unrefuted.

Point 3 of the Britannica definition was:

3. Associated with either a painful or distressing symptom or an impairment in one or more important areas of functioning.

Con, again, tries to refute this point by claiming that I assume correlation equals causation, but this refutes nothing. To satisfy criterion 3, I do not need to prove that homosexuality causes a painful or distressing sumptom or an impairment in an important area of functioning; I need only prove that it is associated with it. This I have done, and Con has failed to refute all of my examples.

Con claims that I misrepresented my 10th source. This is incorrect, and I have not. The study does conclude that claims of drastically increased mortality rates among homosexuals appear unjustified, but I have not made such a claim. I only said that homosexuals have a higher mortality rate; I never said it was drastically higher.

I pointed out the self-evident fact that homosexuality discourages procreative intercourse, and by extension, the survival of the human species. In response, Con attacks a strawman. I never raised a concern for the extinction of humanity. By not arguing against it, Con has conceded my point.

In another failed attempt at refuting point 3, Con attacks another strawman. I never concluded that homosexuality directly causes problematic behaviors; in fact, I do not even need to to satisfy criteria 3. I only need to demonstrate how problematic behaviors are associated with homosexuality. As I have succeeded in proving that homosexuaity is significantly associated with the behaviors in question, I have satisfied point 3.

My arguments concerning parenting also remain unrefuted, as the previously described strawman was attacked instead.

Con rightfully points out that I failed to list source 14. I apologize. Here it is:

James T. Sears, “Challenges for educators: Lesbian, gay, and bisexual families", The High School Journal, 1993-1994, page 140.

Currently, all the required criteria for constituting a mental disorder have been shown to be satisfied by homosexuality, and my case remains solid.

I will now proceed with further arguments to demonstrate homosexuality as aligning with various empirical criteria that, when all satisfied, reasonably constitute a mental disorder.

A) Statistical infrequency. Homosexuality is rare. According to Gary J. Gates of the Williams Institute, a mere 1.7% of the population identifies as homosexual. (15) In comparison, 2.6% suffer bipolar, and 1.1% suffer schizophrenia. (16)

B) Personal distress. Homosexuality is disproportionately associated with personal distress as evidenced by it's correlation with an exceptionally high rate of suicide and co-comorbidity with other mental disorders.

C) Maladaptiveness. Homosexuality is self-evidently maladaptive; it discourages reproduction and propagation of people!

D) Deviation from social norms. Homosexuality is a deviation from social norms. Its obviously not considered normal by society; homosexuals in the United States encounter extensive prejudice, discrimination, and violence because of their sexual orientation. Also, discrimination against lesbian, gay, and bisexual people in employment and housing appears to remain widespread. (17)

I await my opponent's rebuttal, and thank him again for his professional and well-mannered arguments.

(15) http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu...

(16) http://www.nimh.nih.gov...

(17) http://www.apa.org...

Magicr

Con

I appreciate my opponent’s prompt response.

Pro stated that he did not wish to officially institute the rules I originally suggested in R1 as he would rather leave it up to the voters. He also made no remarks concerning the BoP. I assume that is also left up to the voters, and I hope voters understand why it should be recognized as belonging to Pro.

WIKIPEDIA

Generally associated with distress or disability.

The disagreement here is one of scope. In other words, how do we determine what associations really matter to the matter at hand and what associations are, in fact, too general.

Pro may protest that this criterium mentions a general association, so it is wrong for me to argue that his associations are too general, but some associations are too general. I justify this by pointing out that basically everything in the world can be associated with something else if we take a broad enough view.

Therefore, we must draw the line somewhere of what associations are too general.

In R2 I made the connection between heterosexuality and illness based on the negative effects that can occur out of pregnancy using the same kind of logic that Pro used to join homosexuality and illness. This is an example of a connection that is too broad for application in this debate.

It is therefore that I emphasize the importance of causation in determining the validity of an association.

Pro responded to my argument that it is not homosexuality that we should be associating with distress in this debate, but instead the association should be made with bullying and similar things by saying:

“If factors related to homosexuality are associated with distress, then it follows that by extension, homosexuality is associated with distress.”

The problem is that Pro has not demonstrated that this extension is a reasonable extension to make in discussing whether homosexuality is or is not a mental disorder, and as he bears the BoP, this is something that he must do.

I propose that direct causation is a more reasonable standard for determining association in this case. Such causations would be described in a medical sense as symptoms, so what I am saying is that the associations we ought to be looking at are the symptoms of homosexuality. The only symptom of homosexuality is an attraction to persons of the same sex.

I will contrast this to something I’m sure Pro and I can both agree is a mental disorder: schizophrenia. The World Fellowship for Schizophrenia and Allied Disorders websites lists common symptoms of schizophrenia as delusions, hallucinations, illusions, thought disturbances, and emotional behavioral changes [1]. These symptoms are direct results of having schizophrenia and it is easy to see that these symptoms are full of distress and in some cases disability. Schizophrenia is not generally associated with distress because of the social stigmas that are attached to it and could cause something like bullying, but rather because the symptoms of the disease itself cause distress.

This point also applies to Pro’s application of higher mental disorders in homosexuals to this criterium.

Not considered part of normal development of a person’s culture.

Pro’s arguments here are extremely illogical.

First, he argues “Legal recognition of homosexual relationships is the utmost sign of social approval.” It should be pointed out that there are no laws in the United States that make homosexuality or homosexual relationships illegal. In fact, public opinion polls in the United States indicate that the majority of people favor some legal recognition for homosexual relationships [2]. In the United States, homosexuality is generally recognized as a part of our culture.

He then dodges my question “If Pro’s argument is true, does this mean that homosexuality is not a mental disorder in states that have legalized same-sex marriage?” by saying “Would schizophrenia cease to be a mental disorder if it were not legally recognized as such?”

This is circular reasoning. He is saying that we must determine whether something is a mental disorder based on whether it is accepted in a culture, but whether it is accepted in a culture has no bearing on whether it is really a mental disorder or not.

This just goes to demonstrate why this is a silly criterium for evaluating whether something is a mental disorder. Popular acceptance has no bearing on scientific fact.

Finally, he says that although I have shown that numerous cultures throughout history have recognized homosexuality, they have not accepted it because Recognizing homosexuality is not the same as accepting it.” Yet this contradicts the first argument I quoted that said that recognizing homosexuality is “the utmost sign of social approval.”

Obviously, both of these statements cannot be correct.

BRITANNICA

In this round along with rebutting my opponent’s claims, I will argue that according to the Britannica definition and the standards set down by my opponent, heterosexuality is also a mental disorder. If I succeed in doing this, Pro’s arguments here can basically be thrown out.

Illness

In R2 I did not claim that pregnancy made heterosexuality a mental disorder (though that is what I am going to do in this round), I merely claimed that Pro’s standards allowed heterosexuality to be considered an illness as he defined it. This was met with no arguments opposing it. Voters, make of that what you will.

This criterium only applies to homosexuality based on Pro’s arguments if it applies to heterosexuality as well.

I contend, homosexuality, that it does not apply to homosexuality, based on the comments made previously about symptoms and causation.

Significant psychological or behavioral manifestations.

Clearly this criterium applies to heterosexuality.

3. Associated with either painful or distressing symptom or an impairment in one or more important areas of functioning.

Given the pain and distress that can be experience by pregnant women or women who have experienced detriment during child birth, this criterium applies to heterosexuality by Pro’s standards.

This criterium is even more specific than the Wikipedia criterium as it actually specifies that the standard is being associated with symptoms. If it is not causing the symptom to occur, then it is fallacious to make the association between something and that symptom. This renders Pro’s dismissal of the importance of causation slain regarding this criterium.

Concerning the misrepresentation of Pro’s source: While the study does claim that there is some increase in the mortality rate of homosexuals shortly after getting married, it clearly states that the rate overall is not drastically higher. What this means is that it is not high enough to be relevant in this debate, and Pro should have mentioned this.

My opponent argued that I attacked a strawman regarding his discouraging procreation argument. Not true. My counter argument attacked the necessity of procreation by all to keep our species alive and thereby questioned whether homosexuality was indeed detrimental to our sexual functioning as Pro claimed. In no way do homosexual relationships damage the validity of heterosexual ones.

Throughout his defense of this criterium’s application to homosexuality, Pro argues that he does not need to prove causation, only association. This is untrue, as such an association without causation does not fit the symptom part of the standard.

I have both demonstrated that Pro’s arguments are both fallacious and if they apply to homosexuality, then they also apply to heterosexuality.

FURTHER ARGUMENTS BY PRO

Statistical infrequency: This proves nothing. Some people have brown eyes. Less people have hazel eyes. So what?

Personal distress, Maladaptiveness, and Deviation from social norms: These have already been addressed.


The resolution is negated.

Sources:

[1]- http://www.world-schizophrenia.org...

[2]- http://www.politico.com...

Debate Round No. 3
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

Wikipedia

My opponent has conceded my arguments on criteria 1 & 2.

Criterion 3: Generally associated with distress or disability.

My opponent argues that the association of distress with homosexuality is too general to satisfy this criterion. Allow me to demonstrate why he is wrong:

Homosexuals are at least three times more likely to have DSM mental health conditions. (1) A magnitude of three is not too general to be relevant.

Homosexuals are seven times more likely to commit suicide. (2) A magnitude of seven is certainly not too general to be relevant.

Homosexuals are at least forty-four times more likely to be infected by HIV. A magnitude of forty-four is most certainly not too general to be relevant. (3)

My opponent claims that causation is important in determining the validity of an association, but that's false. No where in the definition of 'associated' is the word 'causation.' If Wikipedia's criterion called for causation, it would have used the word 'causes' instead of 'generally associated with.'

Criterion 3 of the Wikipedia definition remains satisfied.

Criterion 4: Not considered part of normal development of a person's culture.

Con says my arguments on this point are extremely illogical, but they are not illogical at all.

In response to my claim, "Legal recognition of homosexual relationships is the utmost sign of social approval", Con says that "no laws in the United States [...] make homosexuality or homosexual relationships illegal." This is a strawman. I never claimed that homosexual relationships are legal or illegal; what I did imply was that in the majority of the U.S.A., laws do not recognize homosexual relationships, in contrast to the legal recognition afforded to heterosexual marriage.

Con says that "public opinion polls in the United States indicate that the majority of people favor some legal recognition for homosexual relationships", but according to Con's own source, a majority of Americans oppose gay marriage! (5)
Con says that "homosexuality is generally recognized as a part of our culture." This is irrelevant. I never said that homosexuality is not recognized as part of American culture; I said that homosexuality is not 'considered part of normal development' in American culture.

Con poses the question, "does this mean that homosexuality is not a mental disorder in states that have legalized same-sex marriage?" As I pointed out in a previous round, the culture in question is the American culture. I chose the legality of gay marriage to defend my position that homosexuality is not considered part of normal development in American culture. If Con wants to argue about an individual state's culture, he needs to specify a state by name.

Con says that "Popular acceptance has no bearing on scientific fact" to argue that acceptance of homosexuality has no bearing on its status as a disorder. In response, I mustache him a question: Why did he use a poll, a measurement of popular acceptance on homosexuality, to argue that homosexuality is not a mental disorder then?

Con argues that I contradicted myself when I said "legal recognition [...] is the utmost sign of social approval" and when I later said "Recognizing homosexuality is not the same as accepting it." This is not a contradiction; mere recognition of homosexuality is not synonymous with legal recognition of homosexual relationships.

Britannica

Criterion 1: Illness.

My opponent claims that pregnancy is necessarily an illness, where 'illness' is defined as "an unhealthy condition of body or mind." This is false. For one thing, pregnancy is a required feature of human life; without it, the human race would quickly go extinct. Furthermore, the U.S. government makes it clear that pregnancy is not necessarily unhealthy by providing instructions on how to have a healthy pregnancy. (6) My opponent has failed to cite a single source that refers to pregnancy as 'unhealthy.'

On top of all this, even if I were to concede that pregnancy is an illness, heterosexuality would not satisfy this criterion; obviously, only women can become pregnant, not men. Thus, Con's argument supports the notion that the state of being a heterosexual female is a mental disorder, and not heterosexuality itself.

Criterion 3: Associated with either painful or distressing symptom or an impairment in one or more important areas of functioning.

Con says that this criterion applies to heterosexuality because of "the pain and distress that can be experience by pregnant women". This is false. I do concede that this criterion is satisfied by pregnancy, but in no way does this make heterosexuality a mental disorder. For one thing, this would only mean that being a heterosexual female is a disorder, since males can't get pregnant. Also, for heterosexuality to be called a mental disorder, all three criteria must be met, and criterion 1 is not satisfied by pregnancy, much less heterosexuality.

Con argues that this criterion requires causation of a painful or distressing symptom to be satisfied. This is obviously false. If Con were right, then the text of this criterion would begin with 'causes' instead of 'associated with.' Also, this criterion doesn't even require association with a painful or distressing symptom; a single impairment in one important area of functioning suffices.

I pointed out a strawman made by Con, but he defended his strawman by saying it "attacked the necessity of procreation by all to keep our species alive." This admission proves the fallacy of Con's argument. I never claimed all people need to procreate to keep our species alive.

Con then makes another strawman: "In no way do homosexual relationships damage the validity of heterosexual ones." I never said homosexual relationships damage the validity of heterosexual ones.

What I did say was that "homosexuality discourages procreative intercourse [...]" This is a self-evident fact and is not disputable. Homosexuality discourages procreative intercourse by it's nature of making non-procreative intercourse more appealing.

Con has failed to demonstrate how heterosexuality satsifies these three criteria, and by extension, he has failed to refute my arguments on these criteria.

Other criteria

Con says that the statistical infrequency of homosexuality proves nothing, and goes on to imply that I think rare eye colors are an indicator of a mental disorder. This is a strawman. I never claimed that statistical infrequency, in and of itself, proves homosexuality is a mental disorder. What I did claim was that homosexuality is a mental disorder because it satisfies the entire collection of criteria as a whole.

SUMMARY:

Con conceded points 1 & 2 of the Wikipedia criteria. His arguments against points 3 & 4 have just been refuted. Thus, homosexuality satisfies Wikipedia definition of a mental disorder.

Con tried to refute my Britannica argument by trying to show how all three criteria applied to heterosexuality. These arguments have just been refuted. Con also conceded point 2. Thus, homosexuality satisfies the Britannica definition of a mental disorder.

My extra arguments have also not been refuted.

My position is sound. Thank you everyone. I await my opponent's response.

(1) Gary Remafedi, MD, MPH, Simone French, PhD, Mary Story, PhD, Michael D. Resnick, PhD, and Robert Blum, MD, PhD. The Relationship between Suicide Risk and Sexual Orientation: Results of a Population-Based Study. 1998.
(2) Whitehead, Neil. Homosexualities and Co-Morbidities: Therapeutic Research and Implications. Journal of Human Sexuality 2:124-175, 2010.
(3) Tanzola, Melinda. HIV, Syphilis Risk Quantified in Gay, Bisexual Men. Clinical Psychiatry News (Volume 38, Issue 9).
(4) Świtaj, Piotr and Wciórka, Jacek. Experience of stigma by people with schizophrenia compared with people with depression or malignancies. The Psychiatrist (2011) 35: 135-139.
(5) http://images.politico.com...
(6) http://www.womenshealth.gov...
Magicr

Con

WIKIPEDIA

Generally associated with distress or disability.

Here, my opponent basically misunderstands and therein misaddresses my argument.

If you’ll recall, my criticism of his associations was not that the actual magnitudes of the correlations were weak, it was that there were too many intermediary causal factors between the items being compared to make the comparison valid when specifically addressing whether homosexuality is associated with distress.

An extreme example of this, but a useful example nonetheless, is the graph often cited by Pastafarians to support their claims that the global temperature has an inverse relationship with the number of pirates in the world:

Despite the correlation seen on the graph, nobody in all seriousness claims that average temperature is generally associated with the number of pirates in any way.

In the same sense, though to a lesser degree, Pro’s associations of homosexuality with distress are largely too general as they have important intermediary causes.

Regarding increased rates of suicide among homosexuals to the tune of 700%, Pro continues to fail to acknowledge that the study only draws this conclusion with homosexual males in high school. So, just as he later protests that pregnancy only affects female heterosexuals, I point out that this study only demonstrates this point with high school males.

Pro argues:“No where in the definition of 'associated' is the word 'causation.' If Wikipedia's criterion called for causation, it would have used the word 'causes' instead of 'generally associated with.'”

This is actually incorrect. According to Google, “associate” can mean “Connect something with something else because they occur together or one produces another” [1].

If that’s not causality, I’m not sure what is. Because he has the BoP in this debate, it is up to Pro to prove that is not what the intended definition is.

In the previous round, I already explained why in looking at other things that are mental disorders, we can see that the mental disorder, itself not outside social factors that can be associated with it, causes significant distress. When discussing schizophrenia, we do not consider it to be a mental disorder because of the negative social stigma it can attract, but rather because of its direct distressing effects.

Pro has failed to meet his BoP regarding this criterium.

Not considered part of normal development.

Pointing out that there are no laws restricting homosexual relationships is not a straw man on my part. I did not claim, nor did I intend to claim that Pro said that such laws did exist. I was merely adding this fact to the discussion, as it demonstrates that our culture is not adamantly opposed to homosexuality.

While my source does say that the majority of people questioned oppose gay marriage, the majority of people did support some form of legal recognition of homosexual relationships. I would have to infer that many of the people who said they opposed gay marriage said so due to marriage being tied with procreation. The important thing to get out of the poll, is that the majority does favor legal recognition of homosexual relationships.

Con writes in response to my question regarding states that have legalized gay marriage: “the culture in question is the American culture. I chose the legality of gay marriage to defend my position that homosexuality is not considered part of normal development in American culture. If Con wants to argue about an individual state's culture, he needs to specify a state by name.”

I am, of course, referring to states within the United States that have legalized same sex marriage. Because he as asked me to name individual states, I will: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, Washington, Maine, and Maryland. Additionally, there is nothing in the resolution that implies American culture. While I understand my opponent’s making the assumption that we are talking about American culture since that is the country in which we both reside, I encourage him to address this criterium with a broader view.

Regarding Pro’s question as to why I used a poll to demonstrate something, when science isn’t determined by public opinion, I have this to say: I agree. So, why did I do it? Because public opinion is the standard through which this criterium is evaluated. Like I have said: I think it’s a silly criterium to use.

Finally, Pro wrote: “Con argues that I contradicted myself when I said "legal recognition [...] is the utmost sign of social approval" and when I later said "Recognizing homosexuality is not the same as accepting it." This is not a contradiction; mere recognition of homosexuality is not synonymous with legal recognition of homosexual relationships.”

This still does not address my point, as my source showed, cultures throughout history have recognized homosexual relationships. Since Pro likes specifics, I’ll mention Sparta, where homosexual relationships were valued in the military because a man would fight better in front of his lover.

This criterium is defeated.

BRITANNICA

Illness

Just because pregnancy is a required part of human life, Pro has not explained why this means it cannot also be an illness. And just as the government has given advice on how to have healthy pregnancies, the government also provides information on things like how to avoid transmitting STDs such as HIV [2]. Although the source is womenshealth.gov, these things apply to men as well.

Pro also pointed out that pregnancy only effects females. While women are more affected than men by pregnancy, there are plenty of ways that men can be psychologically affected due to pregnancies.

If, as he says, Pro is not claiming that procreation is necessary to keep humanity alive, then he needs to explain why procreation is so important that homosexuals relationships not resulting in it is so bad.

OTHER CRITERIA

Pro says that he never claimed that statistical infrequency demonstrates that homosexuality is a mental disorder. If this is the case, why did he bring it up? He says that because homosexuality satisfies all of the criteria presented here, it is a mental disorder, but if that is one of the criteria, then it must in some way have an impact on whether something is a mental disorder. It does not.

CONCLUSION

Pro has failed to meet his BoP regarding any of the disputed premises. As such, the resolution stands negated.


Sources:

[1] https://www.google.com...

[2]- http://www.womenshealth.gov...


Debate Round No. 4
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

Thanks for your response.

WIKIPEDIA


Generally associated with distress or disability.

Con concedes that the magnitudes of the correlations with homosexuality are not weak (comorbidity, suicide risk, and HIV risk).

However, he says that there are "too many intermediary casual factors" between the correlations and homosexuality itself for them to be used to demonstrate homosexuality as being associated with distress.

His primary argument in defense of this claim is an attempted refutation by logical analogy. He compares the correlation of pirate population and global temperature with the correlation of homosexuality and comorbidity, suicide risk and HIV risk. This analogy is illogical because it is obvious hyperbole, and Con even concedes its extreme nature. In Con's own words, "nobody in all seriousness claims that average temperature is generally associated with the number of pirates in any way."

He's right, nobody is associating pirates with temperature. But reputable experts are associating homosexuality with distress. According to Gary Remafedi, M.D., of the University of Minnesota Department of Paediatrics, there "is evidence of a strong association between suicide risk and bisexuality or homosexuality [...]" (4) Also, John Bailey, PhD, in his commentary on a couple meta-analytic studies, says "These studies contain arguably the best published data on the association between homosexuality and psychopathology, and both converge on the same unhappy conclusion: homosexual people are at a substantially higher risk for some forms of emotional problems, including suicidality, major depression, and anxiety disorder." (1)

Con points out that the study which found a 700% higher chance of suicide in homosexuals versus heterosexuals relied on a sample of only males from high school. Although the magnitude is not as large, a significantly high risk of suicide is still demonstrated through other studies. According to the U.S. government, homosexual youths are twice as likely as heterosexuals to attempt suicide. (2) This report is consistent with the findings of Stephen T. Russell, PhD and Kara Joyner, PhD, who found that homosexuals of both genders are 200% more likely to attempt suicide. (3)

Con argues against my use of the word 'associate.' According to Google Dictionary (Con's source), the 2nd definition of 'associate' is:

"Connect (something) with something else because they occur together or one produces another"

Obviously, I do not need to prove that homosexuality produces distress to satisfy the Wikipedia definition. Notice the word 'or' in the definition; the word does not separate the sentence into two individual definitions, because the entire sentence is labeled as definition 2 by the source itself. I only need to prove that homosexuality occurs together with distress to satisfy the definition, and thus, the Wikipedia criterion.

According to a Switzerland study, almost 2/3 of homosexual men are "affected by psychiatric morbidity with new evidence for comorbidity, subthreshold disorders, and low levels of awareness of psychiatric disorders and their treatment. This population needs to be a priority in psychiatric epidemiology and mental public health." (11)

Not considered part of normal development.

Con admits that his own source shows that most people oppose gay marriage.

Con goes on to say that his poll shows that the majority of Americans favor the law recognizing homosexual relationships, but the fact remains that the law itself does not recognize homosexual relationships. Interestingly, the survey claims to have relied on a sample of registered likely voters, but these supposedly likely voters have failed to vote for legal recognition of homosexual relationships. Given this fact, Con's inference of the poll must be considered wrong.

Con claims I asked for the names of states where gay marriage is legal. I didn't; I asked for one state. I cannot be expected to debate the culture of 9 states in one round! Besides, federal law trumps state law, and federal law does not recognize gay marriage (5) and explicitly says states don't need to recognize them, either. (6) Con encourages me to address this criterium with a broader view; very well, I shall address it with the broad view of the entire world. Out of nearly 200 countries, only 11 recognize gay marriage, or less than 7%. Even with the view Con suggests, homosexuality is not generally considered normal. (7)



Con's assertion that ancient cultures recognized homosexual relationships is irrelevant; the criterion says "is considered normal" not "was considered normal a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away."

BRITANNICA

Illness.

Pregnancy is not an illness because it isn't "an unhealthy condition of body or mind." By their references to healthy pregnancies, the government and Wikipedia make this clear. (8)(9) I don't know what point Con was trying to make by citing the government's advice on reducing STD transmission, but his own source says there is no guaranteed way to stop it short of quitting sex.

Con tosses in the assumption that there are "plenty of ways that men can be psychologically affected due to pregnancies" without providing any proof or even mentioning how this is relevant.

Con erects another strawman. He claims I argued that its 'bad' that homosexual relationships don't result in procreation. I never said that. I only explained why the discouraging of procreation enables homosexuality to fit the criterion I presented.

OTHER CRITERIA

I brought up statistical infrequency because when it is satisfied along with the other criteria, it helps constitute a mental disorder. For Con to claim that statistical infrequency has no impact on whether something is a mental disorder is silly for obvious reasons.

I have successfully demonstrated homosexuality as satisfying all the criteria I presented.

Thank you everyone.

(1) Journal of Human Sexuality 1:53, 2009.
(2) Gibson P. Gay male and lesbian youth suicide. In: Feinleib MR, ed. Report to the Secretary's Task Force on Youth Suicide, Vol 3: Prevention and Interventions in Youth Suicide. Rockville, Md: US Department of Health and Human Services; 1989:110–142.
(3) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
(4) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
(5) 1 USC § 7
(6) 28 USC § 1738C
(7) http://www.freedomtomarry.org...
(8) www.womenshealth.gov/pregnancy
(9) http://en.wikipedia.org...
(10) http://www.narth.com...
(11) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Magicr

Con

Well, here we are in the final round. I’ve pretty much made all of the points I wish to make in this debate. So, in this round I’m going to offer a summary of the arguments throughout the debate.


WIKIPEDIA


Generally associated with distress or disability.


My main point here was that Pro offered no evidence that there is a casual relationship between homosexuality and distress.


Pro challenged that demonstrating a casual relationship was not necessary. I presented reasons that it was:


First, I compared the way Pro was evaluating this criterium with the way one would evaluate something that is considered a mental disorder, schizophrenia. I explained that schizophrenia is not a mental disorder because of the social stigma associated with it, but rather because of the direct effects of schizophrenia on the human brain. Pro did not challenge this.


I also explained that by Pro’s standards of evaluation, heterosexuality, or at the very least female heterosexuality, can be associated with distress and disorder due to pregnancy.


My argument can be summarized in the following manner:


If there is no causal relationship between homosexuality and distress, then Pro is not associating homosexuality and distress, rather he is associating people with homosexuality and the people and environments in which they live with distress.


To support this, I will quote from one of the sources my opponent used in R5 to justify this association. In conclusion of the study by Dr. Remfardi it is written: “It is important to note that suicide risk among homosexual students was not attributable to homosexuality, per se, on the basis of the absence of such an association in the females.”


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


For what indeed in the purpose of labeling something a mental disorder? That purpose is to be able to address that thing and as applied to this criterium, in treating that thing, reducing distress and disability. It is therefore necessary for that distress to be an effect of that thing, or else the label is meaningless. Yet, it must be noted that Pro has made no effort at all to address this criterium in its proper context.


Pro has not demonstrated there to be anything about homosexuality that makes it a good candidate to be responsible for the distress he mentioned. It is the other factors involved, namely social factors, that ought to be associated with distress.


Not considered part of normal development.


Although they are not recognized everywhere, legal recognition of homosexual relationships is on the rise in the US. Just because public opinion has not yet been reflected in law, it is clear that such changes are coming based on this trend.


Next, we see a huge cop out by Pro. I asked for him to address states that did indeed legally recognize homosexual relationships. He wanted specifics. I gave him nine states to choose from. Instead of addressing even one, he chooses not to address any because I gave him too many. How different can the analysis of the different states be anyway?


So my point stands: In places where homosexual relationships are legally recognized, homosexuality must not be considered a mental disorder.


BRITANNICA



Illness


Pregnancy is not “an unhealthy condition of body or mind” and neither is homosexuality.


Pro protests that because it is possible to have healthy pregnancies, and I’d guess that most pregnancies are healthy, pregnancy is not an illness.


In the same vein, because it is possible to have healthy homosexual relationships, homosexuality is not an illness.


Finally, Pro says he never claimed that it is bad that homosexual relationships don’t result in procreation. But let’s look back at how Pro initially made this claim:


“Another important area where homosexuality is associated with impairment is sexual functioning. By its very nature, homosexuality discourages procreative intercourse, and by extension, the survival of the human species.”


Unless my interpretation of the word impairment is wildly wrong and if discouraging the survival of the human species is a good thing, then this would indeed be arguing that the lack of procreation from homosexual relationships is bad.


But, if I am wrong, then I guess we have nothing to worry about since the point would in no way effect the resolution.


OTHER CRITERIA


Pro wrote: “For Con to claim that statistical infrequency has no impact on whether something is a mental disorder is silly for obvious reasons.” I must apologize, however, because those reasons are not so obvious to me.


CONCLUSION


I’d like to thank my opponent for this debate.


All I had to do was to demonstrate why Pro did not prove at least one criterium in each standard. I demonstrated why the Wikipedia standard did not apply to homosexuality in both the third and fourth criteria and why the Britannica standard did not apply due to the first and third criteria.


The resolution is negated.


Vote Con!!


Debate Round No. 5
53 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Citrakayah 3 years ago
Citrakayah
....

I wasn't voting against you to 'teach you a lesson'. 'Teaching people a lesson' is why, for example, I argued against deviant.genie by providing myself as an example.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
No, you cannot fault me merely because I argued the definition of mental disorder, (that was the OBVIOUS PURPOSE of this debate) and your votes are NOT a tool to 'teach a lesson.' You can disagree with my arguments, sure, and vote against me because of that, but 'teaching me a lesson' is NOT a valid reason.
Posted by Citrakayah 3 years ago
Citrakayah
Sure I can. I've been known to do semantic arguments, but only when my opponent posts first and basically leaves no guidelines whatsoever--I'm trying to teach the lesson 'word your resolutions more carefully' (or, alternatively, when they provide a definition and the whole resolution is about proving that that definition applies, like in the Michael Savage debate). But you /started/ this debate, which leaves the one accepting with certain ideas of what the debate will be about. That level of inclusiveness in your definition basically renders the whole debate pointless.

It's like if I start a debate about whether gun control will be a good idea, and in the second round say 'the definition of gun control I am using is referring only to target practice'. Because of the highly semantic nature of your arguments, I found them insufficiently convincing. You had the BoP. Thus, Con wins my vote.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
The debate is semantic by nature. You can't fault me for arguing the definition of "mental disorder."
Posted by Citrakayah 3 years ago
Citrakayah
Okay, first off, I'm male.

Secondly, the rules state 'no abusively semantic arguments should be counted'. I gave my logic for considering your argument to be abusively semantic: Your definition of mental disorder renders pretty much everything a mental disorder.
Posted by ddee 3 years ago
ddee
Wikipedia as a source is laughable, and it seems like pro's argument could be applied to almost anything.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
:Homosexuality has been observed in numerous species of animals. Unless you propose that those other animals are capable creating those advanced social situations, homosexuality cannot be only the result of adverse social influences.

I never said the social influences were 'advanced.'

:Your assertions about the homosexual mindset are unjustified.

The statistics back me up. My assertions are from being unjustified.

Fritz's vote might be vague, but it technically is not a vote-bomb, unlike Citrakayah's. 16k's vote also, while you don't agree with him, is not a vote-bomb.
Posted by Magicr 3 years ago
Magicr
You believe all of those things about homosexuality. Most of them are not supported by facts.

Homosexuality has been observed in numerous species of animals. Unless you propose that those other animals are capable creating those advanced social situations, homosexuality cannot be only the result of adverse social influences.

Since you agree that social influences are the main cause of increased STDs, homosexuality itself is not. Your assertions about the homosexual mindset are unjustified.

Regarding the votes, I would say that none of the votes were truly spectacular. Most were pretty vague, especially Fritz, who has vote bombed debates of mine in the past. 16k's vote demonstrated a clear lack of having thoroughly read the debate. While Citrakayah did bring up her own take on things, the way she put things was really an extension of my pregnancy analogy.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
Also, Citrakayah's vote could be considered a vote-bomb, because she provided her OWN argument to refute mine as a justification of her "more convincing arguments" in your favor.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
:And given Dr. Remfardi's acknowledgment of a lack of evidence directly linking homosexuality and increased rates of suicide, the association is more accurate between the social influences and suicide than between homosexuality itself and suicide.

I believe that the cause of all cases of homosexuality is primarily the result of social influences; adverse social influences, to be specific.

:other problems such as increased rates of STDs among homosexuals are not necessarily due to social influences

Increased rates of STDs among homosexuals, I believe, is a result of a particular social influence: the gay activist movement. Ironically, STD rates have not decreased (I daresay, they have increased) in spite of the gay movement's own STD prevention program. I think this is due to the faulty reasoning behind the movement: the idea that one can promote promiscuity while reducing its associated problems at the same time.

:you provided no reason to believe that homosexuality itself is the cause of these increased rates.

Homosexual behavior, specifically. Birth-control, fornication, and homosexual sex inherently have a certain mentality of rejection of personal responsibility behind them, homosexual sex MUCH more so because of the lack of a possibility to have unwanted children. This mentality (which is inseparable from homosexual behavior) promotes further unscrupulous sexual practices which naturally result in a higher rate of sexual pathologies.

:In the end, I congratulate you on your win in this debate, though even you must admit there were several vote bombs involved, and I still consider your position to be a flawed one. But thanks for the debate.

Thank you. I looked at my votes with a critical eye and found only one vote-bomb, and only technically so.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by Citrakayah 3 years ago
Citrakayah
GarretKadeDupreMagicrTied
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: Giving Con arguments because by Pro's definition of 'mental disorder' a dislike of certain movies could be considered a mental disorder if other people harassed them for it, it was abnormal, and it was not part of normal development. Clearly that would be an absurd argument, and thus I count the argument as abusively semantic. Since the crux of the argument is whether homosexuality is associated with distress, I therefore judge GKD's argument insufficient.
Vote Placed by FritzStammberger 3 years ago
FritzStammberger
GarretKadeDupreMagicrTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro presented a very convincing argument. con conceded two points emmediately, points 3 and 4 were successfully defended by Pro. sources go to pro because He used a lot of good sources and this debate was very very well handled and methodic by pro, I have to say, well done.
Vote Placed by Tes95 3 years ago
Tes95
GarretKadeDupreMagicrTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro correctly associates the fact that virtually every case of homosexuality has been associated with some form of social, emotional, or physical disturbance or trauma. Pro listed more sources. Con tried to sidebar by saying it is not in reference to American culture, yet it clearly is if we are the ones entertaining this notion without current consensus. Conduct tied, spelling tied.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 3 years ago
16kadams
GarretKadeDupreMagicrTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro laid out 4 criteria needed to meet a mental disorder. Throughout the debate he demonstrated how homosexuality met each of these criterion. 1) pro showed homosexuality was rare and was not the societal norm. Con let this point slide. 2) sex is a behavior - so it is represented. Con conceded this point. 3) pro indicated homosexuals were more likely to face mental disorders and other factors likely did not account for the difference. 4) like point 1, it involves the norm. This point is mostly a fact because homosexuality is a fairly rare phenomena.
Vote Placed by chainmachine 3 years ago
chainmachine
GarretKadeDupreMagicrTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:20 
Reasons for voting decision: The conduct was excellent and one of the best debates I have ever read. Everything was tied except that I found Pro's sources to be more reliable.
Vote Placed by Skepsikyma 3 years ago
Skepsikyma
GarretKadeDupreMagicrTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Sources due to Pro's extensively sourced argument relying on peer-reviewed material (though I was tempted by the much-loved pirate chart). Arguments were actually very close until the third round, when Con pointed out that the purpose of categorizing a mental disorder as such by associating it with distress is to eventually treat the disorder in an attempt to alleviate said distress. This is obviously only a sensible approach if the association is causative in nature, which really blew two big holes in Pro's argument. Fantastic effort on both sides.
Vote Placed by eastcoastsamuel 3 years ago
eastcoastsamuel
GarretKadeDupreMagicrTied
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a remarkable debate. I applaud both parties for their great maturity and knowledge in tackling this debate, which definitely cannot be said for the majority of debates relating to this topic. Thus, I will not give conduct points to either side; both had excellent conduct. It was extremely close in giving points for most convincing arguments, but I ultimately give those to Con for his arguments about correlation and causality. I will mention that it was a very, very close decision. Congratulations again to both sides for this terrific debate.