The Instigator
mandmandmbaby
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Ahmed.M
Con (against)
Winning
23 Points

Homosexuality Is Acceptable

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Ahmed.M
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/27/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,190 times Debate No: 23889
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (9)
Votes (4)

 

mandmandmbaby

Pro

This argument seems to be very popular, so I think I will bring this one up. I am on the side in which I think homosexuality IS acceptable. If you think otherwise, please feel free to take con in this argument. I look forward to this...:)
Ahmed.M

Con

= = = = = = = INTRODUCTION = = = = = = =

In today's day and age especially in the heavily secularized west, much sympathy has been given to homosexuals with the crux of the support for homosexuals being statements such as “they are unable to control it”, “It is something they were born with” etc. Today statements such as these are taken as almost axiomatic. I think that if homosexuality is completely controllable and isn't biological, we have good grounds to deem it unnacceptable given that there are negativities associated with it.

= = = = = = = DEFINITIONS = = = = = = =

Since my opponent is arguing that homosexuality is acceptable, I will be arguing that it is unnacceptable. Unnacceptable means:

unacceptable: intolerable: hitting children is unnacceptable.

http://dictionary.reference.com...


Since my opponent hasn't clearly defined the resolution, I will define it best according to what I think she means by “Homosexuality is acceptable”.

By homosexuality, we are speaking about people who engage in homosexual actions, specifically sodomy. Sodomy and homosexuality can be used interchangebly. By acceptable, we mean that it should be permissable, legalized, normalized, amoral etc. My opponent will be arguing that homosexual actions are amoral or not immoral. I will be arguing that they are immoral. I will also be arguing that the claimed orientation (by orientation I mean biological aspect) is untenable and probably doesn't even exist.

Resolution (clearer): “Homosexuality is amoral”

amoral means neither moral or immoral, neutral.


= = = = => CONTENTIONS <= = = = =

C1 Homosexuality is contrary to the purpose of sexual organs and is thus immoral (unnatural)

When I use the term natural, it means that it is the proper function for that being. When I say that sodomy is unnatural (immoral), I am contending that it is immoral for people which engage in these acts because it is not the proper function of the sexual organs at hand.

When one is studying the organs of the human body in biology class the function of an organ is bound to be discussed. For example, the functionof the stomach is mainly disgestion. A stomach digests food because that is it's primary purpose. If a stomach is funtioning according to the way it should function we call this a healthy or 'good' stomach. If it is not digesting food properly and functions differently then we say this is a 'bad' stomach. The major discipline of medicine with specialists on each of the major organs work to restore organs to their proper function.

From my example we can see that end goals and functions with regards to organs are facts. However, when a stomach or heart isn't functioning properly, it isn't morally accountable because it is incapable of choice, thought, and is inanimate.

The main purpose of the sexual organs is indeed to procreate. This is self-evident by the way they are structured, they compliment one another. Now when we return back to the case of sodomy we see that this is immoral because we are freely choosing to commit acts with our organs contrary to the way they are suppose to function. This becomes morally reprehensible and as such is immoral. If we act according to the purpose of our sexual organs this is sufficient, there need not be the intention for procreation.

C2 Homosexuality is destructive healthwise

Homosexuality has a number of negative health effects which make condoning it and supporting rather damaging to those who engage in these acts.

In a study which was on sodomy and HIV correlations, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention states:

The majority of persons living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) in the United States are men who have sex with men (MSM) (1). High-risk sexual behavior by HIV-positive MSM exposes sex partners to HIV.” [1]

This statement which the center provides us with is pretty substantial and it shows that sodomy has severe negative health consequences. In ALL the U.S, the people with HIV are mostly men who engage in sodomy. It shows that infections are easily spread and HIV occurrences become increased.

HIV is much greater in men who engage in homosexuality because infections are much easier to spread when sodomy is engaged in. The New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygeine states:

Anal membranes are easily damaged during sex, facilitating the spread of infection. Past studies suggest that anal exposure to HIV poses 30 times more risk than vaginal exposure. [2]

Reinforcing my other point on the spread of HIV, it also states that physical damage to health is more than likely to occur since it is easily damaged when engaged in these sexual activities.

C3 Homosexuality has no sound proven biological basis

There is absolutely no scientific consensus on any claims for a 'gay gene' and the evidence for it none. However, you will commonly hear regular ordinary people claiming that it is established. The major proponent of the biological nature of homosexuality was none other than Dean Hamer who tried to argue a genetic basis for homosexuality (Xq28). However, a university in Canada have tried to duplicate his results but to no avail. The new study actually discredit the main biological proof for homosexuality. Their results were published on various news networks.

It is unclear why our results are so discrepant from Hamer's original study. Because our study was larger than that of Hamer, we certainly had adequate power to detect a genetic effect as large as was reported in that study," the Canadian scientists report.” [3]

Nonetheless, our data does not support the presence of a gene of large effect influencing sexual orientation," they concluded.” [4]

Other's have tried to duplicate his results but couldn't. One of the main signs of a false or true experiment is if one can duplicate the results another groups claims to have. Reputable organizations have retracted and have admitted that there is absolutely no genetic basis for homosexuality. The American Psychological Association states:

A publication from the American Psychological Association includes an admission that there is no “gay” gene, according to a doctor who has written about the issue on the website of National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality.” [5]

Conclusions

Homosexuality (sodomy) has a series of negative health consequences, it is contrary to the way our sexual organs were made to function and there is absolutely biological basis for it, studies actually prove otherwise. Since it immoral, carries negative consequences, and is a choice it makes sense that this practice should be abandoned and condemned since no good comes from it. Just as we condemn and seek to prevent pedophilia, bestiality, and necrophilia so to should homosexuality be deemed unacceptable.


Sources

http://www.cdc.gov... [1]

http://www.nyc.gov... [2]

http://www.independent.co.uk... [3]

http://news.bbc.co.uk... [4]

http://www.wnd.com... [5]

Debate Round No. 1
mandmandmbaby

Pro

mandmandmbaby forfeited this round.
Ahmed.M

Con

My opponent hasn't presented any arguments and my definitions and case stands.
Debate Round No. 2
mandmandmbaby

Pro

mandmandmbaby forfeited this round.
Ahmed.M

Con

Extend arguments and definitions. Vote Con.
Debate Round No. 3
9 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 9 records.
Posted by Noradrenergic 4 years ago
Noradrenergic
If something isn't biological is therefore controllable...Would be a debate in itself perhaps?
Posted by MouthWash 5 years ago
MouthWash
Gender non-conformity during childhood is a likely psychological cause of homosexuality. [http://psycnet.apa.org...]
Posted by bennourse 5 years ago
bennourse
I'll debate against con on this.
Posted by Ahmed.M 5 years ago
Ahmed.M
I learned C1 off of you and some others I read on this site, to be honest so thanks for that. I'm not fully ready for a hard debate, I'm still trying to strengthen my own position haha.
Posted by Contradiction 5 years ago
Contradiction
Yes, the first argument, at least.
Posted by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
Really, you like it? It's incredibly weak. I challenge the con to defend this line of argumentation in a debate with me. Just hope he doesn't puss out like some other defenders of the argument.
Posted by Contradiction 5 years ago
Contradiction
I'm liking Con's argument.
Posted by Apollo.11 5 years ago
Apollo.11
Ahmed, I'll debate you on this.
Posted by AlwaysMoreThanYou 5 years ago
AlwaysMoreThanYou
Ahmed.M, you're a bold one.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Chicken 5 years ago
Chicken
mandmandmbabyAhmed.MTied
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: Tripping on that THC
Vote Placed by Microsuck 5 years ago
Microsuck
mandmandmbabyAhmed.MTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Sad. This was an easy win for Pro and con's arguments were very weak.
Vote Placed by Maikuru 5 years ago
Maikuru
mandmandmbabyAhmed.MTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: Full forfeit by Pro.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 5 years ago
socialpinko
mandmandmbabyAhmed.MTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: No refutations of Con's arguments by Pro means Con wins arguments by default. Conduct and sources are obvious.