The Instigator
Sashil
Pro (for)
Winning
12 Points
The Contender
rjayx8
Con (against)
Losing
11 Points

Homosexuality Is Not Natural

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 6 votes the winner is...
Sashil
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/18/2014 Category: Science
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,938 times Debate No: 56839
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (66)
Votes (6)

 

Sashil

Pro

The usual rules with round 1 for acceptance.


Def.
Natuaral:
in accordance with the nature of, or circumstances surrounding, someone or something.
Eg: "sharks have no natural enemies"
rjayx8

Con

I accept.

However, as there is a character limit of 1000 only, I would like to offer an alternate definition of natural in this round.

Natural:Existing in or derived from nature; not made or caused by humankind

Eg- carrots contain a natural antiseptic

Source: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

Plus I'm assuming that "usual rules" are round 1 acceptance, followed by arguments, concluded by rebuttal. Right? That is all.

Looking forward to a good debate!
Debate Round No. 1
Sashil

Pro

I don't understand the relation between character limit and the definition,the definition that was given by me in the first round stands and this debate will be based on that

My case is simple.
The law of gender governs all creation. This law states that in order for something to exist it must have unity with male and female[1].This is the law of gender and it governs all creation.The primary purpose of gender is reproduction.In order for something to exist and survive the long flow of time it has to be in order with the law of gender.The concept of homosexuality does not heed this law and heavily defies it.
Homosexuality has no need to exist in nature.Life's most basic instinct is to survive and reproduce.Homosexuality is, in a way a defect that defies the original purpose of an organism's existance.Thus, just as physical and mental disabilities that prevail in nature, homosexuality is also, in accordance with nature, an abnormality that was not intended to happen.

S1:http://is.gd...
rjayx8

Con

More than 1,500 animal species engage in homosexual acts. "We"re talking about everything from mammals to crabs. The actual number is of course much higher. Among few animals homosexual behavior is rare, some having sex with the same gender only a part of their life, in the dwarf chimpanzee homosexuality is practiced throughout its life." - Petter Boeckman. Let"s compare this to the 10% that are left handed, is that unnatural as well?

Homosexuality is no recent phenomenon it has been there since time immemorial, (ancient Greece) and will continue to exist, it is present not only in homosapiens but in animals and in nature all around us. It is no aberration it is just a variant not an anomaly. Gary Gates of the Williams Institute reported that an 3.5% of adults in the US identify as being gay / lesbian , he also states that nearly 25.6 million Americans (11% of the population) acknowledge at least some same-sex attraction. Are they defective? Sources in comments.
Debate Round No. 2
Sashil

Pro

I specifically used the 2nd definition and not the 1st one because 

this debate isn't about about whether homosexuality has been created by

man or by nature, it is about whether if, it was meant to be created and

exists for natural reasons or is an anomaly occuring in nature.



Rebuttals:


CON's line of reasoning goes like, If
'X' character is present in many species and has existed for a long time it is natural.He uses the example of left handedness to support his argument.But this argument is fallacious, disabilities both mental and physical satisfy CON's conditions but still are defects.And its absurd to compare homosexuality with left handedness,This can be shown with a simple reasoning.


Being left handed doesnt limit you from achieving the fundamental purpose of hands

But on the contrary being homosexual limits you from the fundamental purpose of gender i.e,Reproduction.



CON finally finishes with an argument that is just purely an argumentum ad passiones fallacy.






Resolution-firmly upheld.
rjayx8

Con


Judges note: I believe the sources used by opponent SHOULD BE CHECKED as they are not credible. His concept of law of gender is an opinion and not backed by science or facts, the page was so substandard it has been removed from wikipedia and the site where he has picked this quote from talks about something completely different and is some self help site. Using the argument of procreation is awkward. My opponent says Homosexuality cannot reproduce therefore it is unnatural, I said it exists in nature, in humans and animals, my opponent not only called it unnatural, he used words like abnormal, anomaly and did not back it with a single fact or proof as to how it was so. He made an evasive case by using an irrelevant definition. He makes claims like it was not intended to happen but does not prove how. My case is simple, just because it cannot reproduce, it cannot be deemed unnatural, Sashil has made an elusive argument which cannot justify as to how homosexuality is natural.


Debate Round No. 3
66 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by subjectname 2 years ago
subjectname
I was anticipating something along the lines of "heterosexual behaviors that can't result in conception in and of themselves still could be related to behaviors that might result in conception." or "vasectomies and other birth control methods sometimes go wrong, so there is still a possibility" I can't think of a good defense for post-menopausal women getting bizzay. They maybe reproduced in the past, but we're talking about now...
Posted by Sashil 2 years ago
Sashil
I guess the only way to stop you from coming up with counter arguments is to........kill you*cough*...*cough*....did I just say that...*cough*.....I meant put my thinking cap on and think harder. O:) :p
Posted by subjectname 2 years ago
subjectname
"Something or someone , conforming to the USUAL or ORDINARY course of nature"

When you are using the word nature here, are you using def #1 or def #2? This sentence really sounds like you're referring to nature as a whole, which would be more like def #1. This is what I pointed out previously as something I thought was problematic, basing the premise of the argument on def #2 but then continually referring to and referencing def #1.

But moving on, anomolous, unusual, and extraordinary things happen in nature all the time. But anomolous doesn't necessarily mean unnatural. When something is harmful or detremental, we usually label it as such by calling it a condition, disease, disorder, impairment, etc. So while science and medicine might say a physical deformity or condition is "abnormal" "unusual" "rare" or even "anomolous," they aren't likely to say it is unnatural.

There are also animals that are the result of unusual genetic combinations. Mules for example are of course a horse mated with a donkey. There are also ligers and tigons (tiger/lion crosses). Usually none of these animals can reproduce themselves at all, ie they are sterile. Domestic cats with a tortiseshell fur pattern are almost always female; when they are male, they are sterile. All of these animals are not normal, but they are also not unnatural. Moving on...

"P1 Any Sexual behavior that doesn't have anything to do with the propagation of our species should not be deemed natural"

This just comes off as a bare assertion / begging the question. First, it should be established why this premise should be considered true.

And add to this, as mentioned previously, not to get graphic, but I could easliy list 10 sexual behaviors heterosexual couples do all the time that would also qualify as unnatural using this premise. Masturbation would also qualify. A man with a vasectomy having sex is another. All of this is besides the point that the premise is a bare assertion.
Posted by Sashil 2 years ago
Sashil
Yes what started with arguments about reproduction and evolution has now boiled down to the question of semantics.Anyway moving on to the subject, I believe that the second definition,unlike you have understood, translates more to "Something or someone , conforming to the USUAL or ORDINARY course of nature" so when you say for example "Multiple Personality Disorder(Lets drop eyeball bleeding it sounds a little juvenile:P) is not natural" you mean that MPD conflicts with the USUAL course of nature, i.e., it hinders with what is proper for a given organism's normal function.

And now that my argument about homosexuality being a gender has been refuted(Damn! D:) I guess I have no choice but to drop my previous premises and present the following new ones.

P1 Any Sexual behavior that doesn't have anything to do with the propagation of our species should not be deemed natural

P2 Homosexuality doesn't have anything to do with the propagation of our species.

C: Homosexuality should not be deemed natural.
Posted by subjectname 2 years ago
subjectname
"I figure you are only new to the site and not new to debating."

You're mostly right :) I am new to the site, and also new to debating in a more formalized context. All of my "debating" has so far occurred informally in conversation or back/forth messaging, or in message boards. In all of these cases, the debate inevatably devolves into meaninglesness and the good, well reasoned points often get lost. Though I sense even in this more formal format, the same thing happens here also. Either way I find the format a little intimidating, there are many many people on this site who are clearly very good at this, wheras I am not anywhere near that level. I'm expecting to get my rear handed to me honestly. Still, I'd like to vote in debates so I have to do some. You've given me some useful advice, so thanks again for that.
Posted by subjectname 2 years ago
subjectname
Yeah, I sense this is collapsing into a semantics debate. Male and Female are genders. Homosexual is a "preference" or "orientation," not a gender.

(from M-W)
Gender:
2a : sex <the feminine gender>

Sex:
1: either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures

So with:
P1 homosexuality is a gender
P2 If it violates the purpose and nature of gender it is not natural with respect to def #2

If homosexauality is a gender, yet we say it is not in accordance with the nature of gender, shouldn't the natural implication be that homosexuality is not a gender?

I'd put it like this:

P1 Gender is "either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures"

P2 Homosexuals can be either gender as defined in P1, but homosexuality itself is not "distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures"

P3 therefore homosexuality is not a gender

The examples were just to show that two words, compound words, or many words can form a single subject. The predicate refers to the subject as a whole. So in the sentence "eyeball-bleeding is not natural" in respect to definition 2, "not natural" is in reference to "eyeball-bleeding" as a whole concept. And using Def #2, eyeball-bleeding is in accordance with the nature of eyeball-bleeding. To say it isn't, because a normal eyeball won't bleed naturally, is similar to saying "Dog-Fighting is not a crime because a dog by itself is not considered criminal." Or "intravenous drug use is natural because it's in accordance with the nature of veins to circulate blood and other substances to the brain and around the body"
Posted by Sashil 2 years ago
Sashil
" rather I was saying that my statement was not an attempt at making a formal or informal argument hoping to sway a hypothetical audience using emotion; it honestly was my own surprise, and clumsly attempt to get clarification"
Yes I assumed so.But I just wanted to ensure that the possibility of it being otherwise was also addressed to. I figure you are only new to the site and not new to debating.
Posted by subjectname 2 years ago
subjectname
As for appealing to emotion; I already stated that I misunderstood what you were originally saying on this, but I'll address your comments anyway. I am familliar with most logical fallacies, including appeals to emotion. That being said, when I said "So for thousands of people who identify as gay or homosexual, and also happen to have biological children, you somehow get to presume to know better than them and claim they are not gay?" this was actualy me expressing surprise at what I had (mistakenly) inferred as your presuming to decide who is really gay. It was also a clumsy attempt to get you to clarify your remarks. As such, it was a question on one specific thing you were saying, and was not me making a formal or informal argument based on the hope of elicitng an emotional response in others.

What I said was all about my own reaction to what I thought you were saying. I honestly wasn't thinking "Aaaha, if I say this, the homosexuals will get angry and backlash on this person, and he'll have to retreat." I dislike that type of argument as well, and I can't fault your reaction if you really thought I was making one.

"First you were.The statement you made lacked any logical ground, you just proclaimed that I was insulting homosexuals without giving a rational reason on how."

Actually I didn't proclaim that you insulted homosexuals. If anything, it was implying insult to you, from my perception of the absurdity of presuming to decide who is gay.

So when I said "not trying to appeal to emotion there" I wasn't saying I am unfamilliar with the fallacy of appealing to emotion; rather I was saying that my statement was not an attempt at making a formal or informal argument hoping to sway a hypothetical audience using emotion; it honestly was my own surprise, and clumsly attempt to get clarification. Which you provided, after clarified my remarks. Thank you for the stimulating dialogue and for the critique, I'll try to be more mindful going forward.
Posted by Sashil 2 years ago
Sashil
I think the confusion begins when you split eyeball and bleeding.Eyeball-Bleeding is meant to be a single word suggesting the phenomenon of 'bleeding out of the eyeballs'.For the sake of clarity lets assume that this phenomenon is generally called as 'Eybing' So when you say "Eybing is not natural" you know that Eybing occurs in the eyeballs,and you also know that eyeballs don't bleed out normally,so when it is stated the sentence makes sense.

The argument can be formalized as a syllogism:

P1 homosexuality is a gender
P2 If it violates the purpose and nature of gender it is not natural with respect to def #2

C: Homosexuality is not natural with respect to def #2

The argument consists of standard modus ponens. If the argument is valid and the premises are likely to be true, then we have excellent reason to accept the conclusion that follows

"Take the sentence "Drunk driving is a crime." "Drunk" generally isn't a crime, driving generally isn't a crime, but drunk driving (as a single subject) usually is a crime. If someone said "drunk driving is a crime," would you say "no it isn't because driving isn't a crime" ? Other examples could be "dog fighting" or "The Running of the Bulls.""

Forgive me, but I fail to see the relevance of these examples with the topic of this argument.

"probably for most english speakers out there, if you said "eyeball-bleeding is not natural," unless clarified, they would assume you meant the #1 definition of natural,"

I don't see why they would, since def #1 is a question of whether it is artificial or natural. Def #2 concentrates more on the nature of the subject, in this case , the eye.And the sentence would be understood as,'it is not the nature of the eye to bleed out under normal conditions but can occur if the circumstances it is subject to, deviated from the original one, where, in this case again, the deviations could be sort of like for example a microbial attack,an infection etc'.
Posted by subjectname 2 years ago
subjectname
RE: eyeball-bleeding etc. This is getting a bit nit-picky, but it's still worth clarifying the distinction that it's how the statement is presented. Using strictly definition #2, saying "eyeball-bleeding is not natural" doesn't make sense, because again it would be saying that "eyeball-bleeding is not in accordance with the nature of eyeball-bleeding." The reason for this is, in grammar and the english language, "eyeball-bleeding" in the construction of the sentence "eyeball-bleeding is not natural" is taken as a single subject and a single concept. Yes eyeballs are implied within the subject, but the subject itself is "eyeball-bleeding" or "bleeding of the eyeballs"

Take the sentence "Drunk driving is a crime." "Drunk" generally isn't a crime, driving generally isn't a crime, but drunk driving (as a single subject) usually is a crime. If someone said "drunk driving is a crime," would you say "no it isn't because driving isn't a crime" ? Other examples could be "dog fighting" or "The Running of the Bulls."

You could avoid this issue by constructing you sentence in such a way that the subject of the sentence is the specific, unambiguous thing or concept which you wish to describe by the predicate. Examples:

"Given what is medically known about the eyeball, for one to sponaneously bleed would not be natural."

"If we restrict the word 'gender' to mean 'exclusively related to males and females reproducing sexually,' you can see that under this specific definition, gay sex is not natural as it relates to gender"

I think at this point it could be useful to also point out that, probably for most english speakers out there, if you said "eyeball-bleeding is not natural," unless clarified, they would assume you meant the #1 definition of natural, and not the #2, which may be why I find this debate a bit baffling as presented. "X is not natural" all but insists on def #1, as "X is not natural" under #2 means "X is not in accordance with the nature of X.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by Jay-D 2 years ago
Jay-D
Sashilrjayx8Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: In my opinion, conduct is tied. Very few external sources were seen here, and based on con's plea in rd3, it turns out only one proper source was used, which was provided by Con. BUT, the said source contained an alternate definition to the one provided by the instigator, and hence I call it void. As far as arguments are concerned, Con failed to mount an effective offense; his statements contained flaws that have already been outlined by the voters preceding me. In the end, "homosexuality" as presented by Con did not fulfil Pro's definition of "natural". Edit: looking over the previous votes, I find RFD provided by YYW to be faulty(It's CON's job to prove homosexuality is natural, not Pro's). It would've been inconsequential, except that the debate may now end in a stalemate due to a faulty vote. Hence, I hereby back off my hardline stance on grammar, and rescind the point I awarded to Con for S&G. It was too harsh to begin with anyways. Overall, I award the debate 3-0 to Pro.
Vote Placed by phantom 2 years ago
phantom
Sashilrjayx8Tied
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's case was completely baseless. Con only barely argued against it, but it was so groundless that I can't possibly vote Pro.
Vote Placed by Themba 2 years ago
Themba
Sashilrjayx8Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:23 
Reasons for voting decision: Comments.
Vote Placed by 9spaceking 2 years ago
9spaceking
Sashilrjayx8Tied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: pro made the definition of homosexuality in such a way that con could not fulfill it. I bet he just misunderstood the meaning, which is why he couldn't prove homos to be natural.
Vote Placed by ShadowKingStudios 2 years ago
ShadowKingStudios
Sashilrjayx8Tied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: The first vote has errors. Pro's premise was not to prove homosexuality natural but unnatural. His source not valid, ok, don't give him the points. But debates are about the strongest, most practical argument. Pro demonstrated through common sense understanding that "heterosexuality" services a particular purpose in the natural order of life--to reproduce. Homosexuality does not service that natural order. Hypothetical: if the entire world's human population gave up heterosexuality & its end result for homosexuality & its end result, the human population would one day cease to exist. Would that be natural? Amended: Taking away sources points from Con, because a dictionary definition doesn't deserve points. If the definition was wrong, it was up to Pro to show it in error. Since Pro didn't, possibly because he knew it to be correct.
Vote Placed by YYW 2 years ago
YYW
Sashilrjayx8Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO did not prove that homosexuality is natural. CON showed that there are examples of homosexuality in nature, with sources. PRO's sources were problematic. Arguments/sources to CON.