The Instigator
Nonsensicality
Pro (for)
Losing
4 Points
The Contender
1Historygenius
Con (against)
Winning
8 Points

Homosexuality: Yay or Nay?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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...
1Historygenius
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/22/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,533 times Debate No: 31549
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (4)

 

Nonsensicality

Pro

This debate is on whether homosexuality is 'good' or 'bad', acceptable or wrong, natural or unnatural.

I am for homosexuality. You are born homosexual, it isn't something you can catch, and they are the same as straight people, just different sexual preferences.

I look forward to this debate.
1Historygenius

Con

"....they are the same as straight people, just different sexual preferences."

No, their not and I will explain why in my case.

My Case


What is Marriage?

In this debate, we must understand what is the role of marriage society and how the government should act when involved in marriage. I am sure that first and foremost, me and my opponent both agree that marriage is a secular institution not a religious one. There is a separation of church and state in the United States, so we must understand that. There is a reason marriage must only be heterosexual and not homosexual. I will explain this reason.

Marriage in Society and Government

The purpose of marriage is to continue the survival of society. With marriage, people create children for society continue. If heterosexual marriage did not exist, then there would be no society as it is a bond that brings a male and female together to create children. Homosexuals cannot create childre. If an entire society was made up of homosexuals then that society would soon not exist. This is why heterosexual marriage is important to society.

The government's role is to keep society intact. Thus, homosexual marriage should not legalized because it does not benefit society. The government must create a procreative society in order to produce more children. Allowing heterosexuals to marry does just that. Because homosexuals do not create children, their marriage has no purpose and that is why it must remain illegal. [1,2,3,4,5]

Parenting

We must also see what is best for children, who will be brought up in a society. Homosexuals can obviously adopt children, but is that a good idea? A study in July 2012 took up that task. What he found is that children with homosexual parents do worse in all catergories compared to their heterosexual counterparts. In addition, my opponent has brought up the question of marriages and relationships into the debate. This is about divorce. Divorce has always been a negative influence on children. What we find is that homosexual relationships break up more than heterosexual relationships. This proves that homosexual marriage has a negative effect on society. [6]

One article also proves that children need mothers and fathers and that families with only just mothers or fathers (homosexual couples) have problems. [7] Another study proves this. In fact it has lead to an increase in violence along with physical and mental damage on children:

"Homosexually-behaving adults inherently suffer significantly and substantially higher rates of partner relationship breakups, psychological disorder, suicidal ideation, suicidal attempt, completed suicide, conduct disorder, and substance abuse; therefore, as a group, households with a resident homosexually-behaving adult are substantially less capable of providing the best psychologically stable and secure home environments needed by foster children." [7]

"High rates of violence in lesbian and gay relationships finds significant support in the research. In a study Lockhart (1994) found that 90% of lesbians surveyed had been recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their partners during the 12 months prior to the study. Thirty-one percent reported one or more incidents of physical abuse." [8]

"While it is not intended to detail the medical consequences of homosexual practices, the following diseases have extraordinary frequency among gay men: anal cancer, chlamydia trachomatis, cryptosporidium, giardia lamblia, herpes simplex virus, human immunodeficiency virus, human papilloma virus, isopora belli, microsporidia, gonorrhea, viral hepatitis types B and C and syphilis. The transmission of some of these diseases are so rare among heterosexuals as to be virtually unknown. Other diseases, such as syphilis, were found among heterosexuals, but not nearly as prevalent as in the gay population (Diggs. 2003). The CDC (1999) reported that 85% of syphilis cases in King County. Washington were among gay men. Presently, syphilis has reached epidemic in San Francisco (Heredia, 2001). Besides diseases, physical conditions associated with anal intercourse include hemorrhoids, anal fissures, anorectal trauma and retained foreign bodies (Barone, 1983). The list continues with the "gay bowel syndrome" and extremely high rates of parasitic infections (Hastings & Weher. 1994; Kazal. 1976)." [8]

Conclusion

I have proven that gay marriage should not be legal because it does not benefit society. It should also not be legal because it hurts children.

Sources

1. William C. Duncan, "The State Interests in Marriage" Ave Maria Law Review (2004)
2. "PROTECTING AMERICA'S IMMUNE SYSTEM: A REASONABLE ARGUMENT AGAINST HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE" by Frank Turek
3. "Same Sex marriage: Should it be legalized?" By Alexander Adams, Sandia Preparatory school
4. "Straight is better: Why Law and society May Justly Prefer Heterosexuality" By George W. Dent, Jr.
5. Sherif Girgis, Robert P. George, and Ryan T. Anderson, "What is Marriage?" Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy 34, (Winter 2010)
6. Mark Regnerus, “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study,” Social Science Research Vol 41, Issue 4 (July 2012)
7. http://catholiceducation.org...
8. http://narth.com...
Debate Round No. 1
Nonsensicality

Pro

I do agree with the contender that marriage is secular and no longer a purely religious institution. However...

"The purpose of marriage is to continue the survival of society."

How is marriage continuing the survival of society?
Society - The aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community. Source - dictionary.com

So homosexuality has absolutely no relevance to society's survival. Marriage also has no relevance to the survival of the human race. Marriage didn't stop neanderthals and the like from producing offspring. And especially in these times, marriage itself is coming to mean less and less. People have children out of wedlock all the time. If an entire community - I do not use the word society due to the aforementioned inaccuracy- was made up of homosexuals, they wouldn't be so wrapped up in being homosexual that they would be stupid. As I have previously stated in the opening statement, they are the same as straight people, with different sexual preferences. They have brains and hearts and consciences. They have personalities. And homosexuals, or at least some of them, would want children. And if the entire world was homosexual, they would work together, as the human race seems to be capable of, to produce offspring. Many homosexual couples collaborate so as to have biological children of their own. And thus, society would continue. Gay marriage does not benefit nor take away from society because it isn't eliminating the human race.
1Historygenius

Con

MY Refutations

"How is marriage continuing the survival of society?"


Marriage has a certain role in society, that is to promote society's survival.

"So homosexuality has absolutely no relevance to society's survival. Marriage also has no relevance to the survival of the human race."

Incorrect, if my opponent does not believe me read my sources, they give the definition. My opponent is just simply wrong here.

"If an entire community - I do not use the word society due to the aforementioned inaccuracy- was made up of homosexuals, they wouldn't be so wrapped up in being homosexual that they would be stupid."

I have no idea what my opponent is talking about here, but a completely homosexual society would stop existing because no one would produce offspring. This why heterosexuality is needed. Because homosexual marriage has no benefit, it has no need to exist in society. Heterosexual marriages have a special value that homosexual marriages do not have. Because of this homosexual marriages should not be legal. The government's job is to make a healthy environment for the creation of offspring.

"As I have previously stated in the opening statement, they are the same as straight people, with different sexual preferences."

When discussing the bond between homosexuals, in other words when they get married, we do not discuss individuals. I have already states why marriage of homosexuals should not be allowed.

"And if the entire world was homosexual, they would work together, as the human race seems to be capable of, to produce offspring."

My opponent has no idea what a homosexual is.

"Gay marriage does not benefit nor take away from society because it isn't eliminating the human race."

The government's role is to make sure children prosper in a healthy procreative environment. My opponent does not seem to understand that.

Conclusion

My opponent has not contested my arguments in parenting. Nor has he really understood government's role in marriage. I did not contest some of my opponent's arguments because some are irrelevant and idiotic rants and statements that have no purpose in the debate or are just repeats of just previous arguments.

Sources

1. William C. Duncan, "The State Interests in Marriage" Ave Maria Law Review (2004)
2. "PROTECTING AMERICA'S IMMUNE SYSTEM: A REASONABLE ARGUMENT AGAINST HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE" by Frank Turek
3. "Same Sex marriage: Should it be legalized?" By Alexander Adams, Sandia Preparatory school
4. "Straight is better: Why Law and society May Justly Prefer Heterosexuality" By George W. Dent, Jr.
Debate Round No. 2
Nonsensicality

Pro

"And if the entire world was homosexual, they would work together, as the human race seems to be capable of, to produce offspring." - My argument

I am sorry if I was unclear with this statement. Artificial insemination to create children is what some homosexual couples do. I simply did not think it necessary to go into detail and thought that it was simply understood. Clearly not.

"The government's role is to make sure children prosper in a healthy procreative environment. My opponent does not seem to understand that." - My opponent's counter argument to another argument.

If the government's role is to make sure children prosper in a healthy, procreative environment, which it is, who is to say that heterosexual marriage is the only way to go? Yes, I see my opponent has provided many sources as to how apparently homosexuality is bad in many ways.

The article number 4 caught my eye; the title makes me want to question the intelligence of the human race. It's a biased title, and that automatically makes me want to question the real information behind it. And honestly, who cares what society PREFERS? Homosexuality is BORN into your genes. Does my opponent think that society has any say in your chemical makeup? I sincerely hope not. So society can have all the opinions it wants, but homosexuality happens, and that's not going to change unless we gain the ability to change chromosomes.

I thank you for a VERY fruitful debate.
1Historygenius

Con

My Refutations?

I am not even sure if my opponent attacked my arguments in round 3.

"If the government's role is to make sure children prosper in a healthy, procreative environment, which it is, who is to say that heterosexual marriage is the only way to go? Yes, I see my opponent has provided many sources as to how apparently homosexuality is bad in many ways."

Because homosexuals have been proven to not be good parents. Read my sources. Heterosexual marriage is the only way to go because it does benefit society by putting the children in a healthy environment. The majority of homosexuals do not do that.

"The article number 4 caught my eye; the title makes me want to question the intelligence of the human race. It's a biased title, and that automatically makes me want to question the real information behind it. And honestly, who cares what society PREFERS? Homosexuality is BORN into your genes. Does my opponent think that society has any say in your chemical makeup? I sincerely hope not. So society can have all the opinions it wants, but homosexuality happens, and that's not going to change unless we gain the ability to change chromosomes."

So now my opponent goes on a random rant about source 4 in my arguments. Seriously, he just attacks the title and that's it. Don't judge a book by its cover. When you are part of a society, that society has certain needs. One if its needs is its survival and its children. Homosexuals simply cannot do that. Even if homosexuals could have children in any way, the studies show that they prove to be bad parents.

Conclusion

My opponent did not have proof to defeat both of my arguments. My opponent also provided no sources. I strongly urge the viewers to vote Con.

I thank my opponent for an interesting debate.



Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by archierich33 3 years ago
archierich33
yay
I don't really understand why people strongly oppose homosexuality, someones sexuality is essentially a defining aspect of you identity. Those who oppose it are essentially repressing someones identity. We should see homosexuality as just loving and not as an act or deed. We could certainly do with some more homosexuals if we want to live in a more sustainable way as we are steadily over populating!
Posted by BrooklynHaze 3 years ago
BrooklynHaze
Person opinion, ahead. Any religious affiliation with the backing of the Judeo-Christian God is usually if not always bias, so yes, I personally think that source is damaged because of conflict of interest. Conflict of interest being that the catholic belief that gay is unnatural comes from a book written by a human, aka a valid under the definition of an opinion.
Posted by 1Historygenius 3 years ago
1Historygenius
@booklyn there is nothing wrong with the source
Posted by vegeta501 3 years ago
vegeta501
You are not born gay. When you are a new born you don't even know what love is.
Posted by BrooklynHaze 3 years ago
BrooklynHaze
Personal opinion ahead.

Keep in mind, will & choice are related but not the same.

Choice of sexuality depends on will of choice. Being strait is as much of a choice as being gay, tradition and anti-tradition will not change that. (aka societies criticism)
We can freely choose who to have sex with and who not to have intercourse with, again it's indeed a choice.

Gay men decide not to have sex with women, strait women decide not to have oral with another women.

Now if you mean LOVE, then it is up to ones subconscious whether they fall in love with someone of the same or opposite sex. Love is an inaction of action (can happen to anyone even if not trying), sex is a choice.

A man who has chosen to have sex with women only can easily decide to intercourse (damn word filter) a guy out of nowhere, same with women, if not more often.
Posted by BrooklynHaze 3 years ago
BrooklynHaze
http://catholiceducation.org...

As a source? Really?
Posted by whitneyhaynie 3 years ago
whitneyhaynie
In the Bible it says God loves all of his children. Don't the "gays" count? Even if loving the same sex is a sin, don't they get forgiven? It doesn't matter what the sin is. It's the 2013 teh world is changing, society is changing too. Kids are dying because they can't be who they are. Everyone has that freedom. Or should have that freedom. Everyone has the right to love who ever theya want, even if it's not in the Bill of Rights. Isn't jhating or loathing a gay the same as being racist? It's the same for me. You still treat that perosn like dirt. Nobody should be treated like that. No one should cry on Sundays.
Posted by elvroin_vonn_trazem 3 years ago
elvroin_vonn_trazem
I agree with Chris.Allen; Con distorted the debate from its initial premise. Not to mention that Con messed up in other ways. For example ONE study was cited. Usually such things require multiple studies, especially to prove that the original researcher successfully excluded personal bias. Then there is the fact that heterosexual marriage has its problems, too:

http://www.cnn.com...

According to that link, it is not hardly true that marriage is required for the human species to survive!
Posted by Noumena 3 years ago
Noumena
lol.k
Posted by 1Historygenius 3 years ago
1Historygenius
@Noumena he is one of the top intellectuals of our generation.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by xXCryptoXx 3 years ago
xXCryptoXx
Nonsensicality1HistorygeniusTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro didn't so much as try to refute many of the points Con brought up while Con successfully defended against all of Pro's points.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 3 years ago
16kadams
Nonsensicality1HistorygeniusTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Although CON argued SSM, he included statistics of violence and societal inadequacies amongst the homosexual community, which directly relates to the resolution. The fact pro was unable to refute those statistics meant he lost the debate. CON was also able to show heterosexual sex is inherently valuable, unlike homosexual sex which is unable to lead to the fruition of children.
Vote Placed by frozen_eclipse 3 years ago
frozen_eclipse
Nonsensicality1HistorygeniusTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: this debate wasnjust sad. coms case coild have been easily ripped apart like a dogs chew thing. pro did bring more reasonable arguments. However pro could have done way better. cons could have been way better and I wish someone had some originality.
Vote Placed by 1dustpelt 3 years ago
1dustpelt
Nonsensicality1HistorygeniusTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: Terrible topic. I give arguments to neither because Con was arguing about homosexual marriage, not the OP. Pro did not prove anything either.