The Instigator
Cobjob
Pro (for)
Losing
26 Points
The Contender
Kleptin
Con (against)
Winning
53 Points

Homosexuality defies the laws of nature.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/21/2008 Category: Health
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 4,542 times Debate No: 2062
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (30)
Votes (19)

 

Cobjob

Pro

If you believe in evolution or "survival of the fittest" it is impossible to justify a belief in homosexuality by nature. Biologically, homosexuality serves no purpose and is actually detrimental to the survival of the species. If homosexuality is genetic, it is a defect and we should research methods to treat it.
Furthermore, it is well documented that people of the homosexual persuasion are far more susceptible to certain diseases; from AIDS to more recently MRSA. This is natures way of eliminating the defect.
Kleptin

Con

It may be a stretch to say that homosexuality has absolutely no evolutionary benefit. Evolution is not a series of changes within an individual, it is a series of changes within a species. It can be argued that homosexuality introduced in a dominant species is a form of population control, just like lifespan.
Debate Round No. 1
Cobjob

Pro

"It can be argued that homosexuality introduced in a dominant species is a form of population control, JUST LIKE LIFESPAN." (emphasis added by me)

If homosexuality is a form of population control introduced to dominate species like life span, name an organism that does not have a life span. Or explain how there are maybe three species with higher life expectancies than humans, the dominate species.

"Evolution is not a series of changes within an individual, it is a series of changes within a species."

Maybe one of the fatal flaws in the theory of evolution. To have a change in a species you must start somewhere. To have sociology you have to have psychology.

More than anything I would like to thank you for feeding into my argument that homosexuality, if in fact it is natural, it would contradict evolution's goal of survival. Evolution by its very nature can not be self destructive.
Kleptin

Con

"If homosexuality is a form of population control introduced to dominate species like life span, name an organism that does not have a life span."

I don't quite follow your argument. So I'll elaborate on my point until you explain in the next round.

There is scientific evidence that shows the telomeres at either end of our DNA chains, essentially non-coding regions, protect the genetic material within. When DNA is copied, the mechanism that copies it drops off *near* the end of the chain, so in essence, the copy is short. If this process continues, actual coding regions will be clipped. Fortunately, there is protection for this as well. An enzyme, the name of which escapes me at this moment, extends the telomeres of the newly coded DNA chain to the former length. Curiously, this enzyme shuts off at some point in our lives. It is believed that at this point, we begin to show the symptoms of aging.

"Or explain how there are maybe three species with higher life expectancies than humans, the dominate species."

Because lifespan isn't the key factor in evolutionary superiority. Vermin reproduce rapidly but tend to have short lifespans. This is a good example of how lifespan may be a natural "population control" trait.

"Maybe one of the fatal flaws in the theory of evolution. To have a change in a species you must start somewhere. To have sociology you have to have psychology."

And prior to psychology you have to have organized learning, and prior to that, communication, etc.

Homosexuality carries over. Certain apes engage in homosexual activity, so do countless other species like, dolphins.

The benefit does not necessarily have to be immediately within an individual. Most mutations are benign or inactive and propagates throughout a population without affecting the overall fitness of the individual OR the group. In fact, most traits are the result of several compounded mutations that may have developed from different corners of the globe.

"More than anything I would like to thank you for feeding into my argument that homosexuality, if in fact it is natural, it would contradict evolution's goal of survival. Evolution by its very nature can not be self destructive."

Survival of the species, not survival of the individual. Thus, this begs the question.
Debate Round No. 2
Cobjob

Pro

In general the more dominate the species the longer the life span. This is seen throughout nature. This is contrary to your argument that a shorter life spans is population control for dominate species. The argument you made about the rats shows how shorter life spans counter balance rapid reproduction not not species domination.

You have yet to prove how homosexuality would be beneficial to the human race. Controlling the human population might be beneficial to other organisms, but not to humans themselves.

If your argument were true, and it was population control that normally laid dormant until it was needed, we would see more homosexuality in those areas where resources were scarce and population control was needed. Instead homosexuality tends to be more prevalent in more affluent areas; not exclusive to, but far more prevalent.

You completely missed my point on psych/soc. Sociology can not take place without psychology. When I am saying this I am not referring to the study of, or getting a pre req out of the way, I am saying you can not have group thought without having individual thought. Just like you can not have species evolution or survival unless it starts on the individual level.

The fact that homosexuality presents itself in these less superior and some endangered species feeds my argument that homosexuality is not a part of the process, but a defect. It would not be in the best interest of the species to have homosexuality present.
Kleptin

Con

"In general the more dominate the species the longer the life span. This is seen throughout nature. This is contrary to your argument that a shorter life spans is population control for dominate species. The argument you made about the rats shows how shorter life spans counter balance rapid reproduction not not species domination."

The correlation is arbitrary. Trees and turtles have a much longer lifespan than humans do, but their reproductive methods are not as efficient. Rats, if they had a lifespan comparable to that of humans, would cover the entire earth and destroy all plant life by sheer numbers. It's all about reproduction speed. This goes on to the next point:

"You have yet to prove how homosexuality would be beneficial to the human race. Controlling the human population might be beneficial to other organisms, but not to humans themselves."

Humans number at 6 billion, and there will eventually be a great lack of resources because we use so much. Homosexuality allows a significant portion of the population to mate, but not contribute to overpopulation.

"If your argument were true, and it was population control that normally laid dormant until it was needed, we would see more homosexuality in those areas where resources were scarce and population control was needed. Instead homosexuality tends to be more prevalent in more affluent areas; not exclusive to, but far more prevalent."

That's not the way evolution works. Especially not in a trait as complex as homosexuality. If we were talking about resistance to heat or cold, it would be a different story and it would abide by all you have said about it affecting individuals prior to populations. From what we know about homosexuality, IF it is biological, it is a result of several genes working in correlation with environmental triggers. Thus, one must have the correct combination of genes AND be exposed to whatever environmental trigger that causes it. Statistically, homosexuality is not more or less prevalent in any area. This is to be expected because the human gene pool is very open, unbound by geographic factors.

"You completely missed my point on psych/soc. Sociology can not take place without psychology. When I am saying this I am not referring to the study of, or getting a pre req out of the way, I am saying you can not have group thought without having individual thought. Just like you can not have species evolution or survival unless it starts on the individual level."

Actually, no I didn't. I hit the nail right on the head. I just didn't explain my point thoroughly enough because I assumed you knew what I meant. You basically meant that to have a trait appear in a population, it must first occur in an individual. When I said that those subjects you mentioned required other things to exist, I was basically saying that prior to it appearing in a certain individual, there are OTHER requirements. Remember what I said about some traits being the result of a COMBINATION of genes that have mutated independently, possibly from other corners of the globe?

Let's use an example of culture. A country's culture may very well be impacted by religious and philosophical ideas from far away, and the amalgamation because that country's culture. Similarly, before an individual can express a trait (homosexuality) I am saying that these mutations that make up the trait of homosexuality must have come into existence and SPREAD throughout the population, before meeting in an individual and giving it one of the prerequisites to express the trait.

"The fact that homosexuality presents itself in these less superior and some endangered species feeds my argument that homosexuality is not a part of the process, but a defect. It would not be in the best interest of the species to have homosexuality present."

First of all, the argument presented in relation to other animals is null. We don't define nature by what we believe nature is supposed to be. Thus, it's kind of strange to say that a phenomenon we see in nature is unnatural or "wrong" because of evolutionary theory (which happens to be a theory developed upon observation of nature). Nature doesn't contradict itself, it just is, by the definition of that word.

There only exists room for this debate in terms of human homosexuality, which we can argue is an artificial or psychological thing. We can judge the norm of humans based on how we view ourselves. That is the scope in which this debate must occur.

Simply speaking, human homosexuality does not defy the laws of nature in terms of evolution because it is contributing to the danger of extinction by overpopulation and exhaustion of resources. It is contributing to our survival.
Debate Round No. 3
30 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by DoubleXMinus 9 years ago
DoubleXMinus
I probably came off so defensive just then because it was a bit perturbing that he declined. All of this poking and insulting and then the loser runs away? Come on now.

As for the topic at hand, I accept your challenge as well and will be sending you one.
Posted by Solarman1969 9 years ago
Solarman1969
Gee double x monkey

Are you a clit licker ?

Is that why you are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO defensive?

I will happily debate you that male homosexuality is a mental illness, dangerous and should be highly discouraged among boys

Lesbians are sexy in my view -
Posted by DoubleXMinus 9 years ago
DoubleXMinus
Anybody who reads this in the future (somehow...) I would like to say in response to Cobjob's last remark... That he has indeed declined my challenge. He has forfeited the opportunity to defend his prior allegations against lesbians and therefore his opinion behind them.

He has lost this debate entitled "homosexuality defies the laws of nature" and now he has also bowed down to any arguments against his position in ths responses as well.

I would like to say to you personally, Cobjob -- perhaps in the future you should stay away from anything having to do with homosexuality. ;)
Posted by DoubleXMinus 9 years ago
DoubleXMinus
"As much as I appreciate the personal attacks, and even expect them from closed minded liberals...."

There, that is a copied and pasted account of what you've said, that's where "closed-minded came from.

As far as your challenge, I've accepted that and sent you one.
Posted by gonovice 9 years ago
gonovice
like i care what you think.
Posted by Cobjob 9 years ago
Cobjob
I would say that this debate had nothing to do with any lesbians. If being straight was wrong then humanity would be wrong. Nowhere in the debate was comfort level or God discussed. So, maybe read the debate, not just the title, then comment.
Posted by gonovice 9 years ago
gonovice
what is so wrong with lesbians? people today are so close minded. it isn't what God wants so you say it's wrong. or it makes YOU uncomfortable so you say it's wrong. what if being straight is wrong? who really knows? i personally think you all need to back off of them. just because it's different then what you do doesn't mean it's wrong. get used to it, cuz i have a feeling that gays and lesbians aren't going anywhere. what do you all have to say about that.
Posted by Cobjob 9 years ago
Cobjob
"Alright, so did you mean, "Women aren't homosexual, after all -- they can't really have sex. Oral doesn't count." Is that not basically what you said? And you accuse me of being closed-minded?"

Please, do not paraphrase me! Especially if you are going to use quotation marks. If you want to quote me your computer has a copy and paste feature, read your manual. Don't tell me you are too dense to pick up the tongue in cheek portion of that post. Did I say closed minded somewhere? Lesbians are different than homosexual men, men are different than women, even if liberals hate that fact. Two different arguments. If you want to have a challenge about lesbians you can send the challenge.

"How many lesbian relationships are you personally acquainted with that you feel so qualified in speaking of their inner dynamics? "Little to no physical contact..." Okay, now how do you know that?"

I hate pulling the "I have friends" argument, but you asked for it.
In highschool my roommate was gay, his mother was a lebian and both of her sisters were lesbians. So for about a year every holiday was spent with 6-8 lesbians and a homosexual man. One of my closest friends and mentor is a lesbian. And several gay/lesbian friends throughout life.

Don't just say, "Well a lot of lesbians have said...." Which lesbians? Prove it.
I think it was Rosie.
Posted by DoubleXMinus 9 years ago
DoubleXMinus
"Yeah it's bad, but everybody does it." Is not what I was trying to get at.

Male homosexuality is not a disease that automatically causes this kind of behavior, that's my point. Yes, some gay men go about life this way, but so do others. What I mean by this is: It has little to do with their sexual orientation, it has to do with the individual period, you follow?

Would you believe me when I say there are gay couples out there who have been together in a monogomous relationship for 30 years and up? That's my point, and now I am done.

(Stop bringing NAMBLA or anything related in to this, it's merely a distraction from what our debate originally was and it has been rebuked in full.)
Posted by multislack 9 years ago
multislack
When did either of us say anything close to "everyone does it"? What is "it"?

Guys and girls (straight) do not go to bath houses because:

a) Straight guys and girls can meet anywhere free from persecution.

b) Straight women aren't looking for large amounts of no-strings-attached sex. If women were as hardwired for large quantities of sex with as many partners as possible (like men are BIOLOGICALLY) you would see the same thing in both the heterosexual community and the lesbian community. There's a reason why it's more prevelent amongst gay men.

NAMBLA is a whole other argument. "folks at disgusting organizations like NAMBLA" support their own cause. What are you getting at exactly? No one is arguing the fact that NAMBLA is a disgraceful club for degenerates, not because homosexual activity is wrong but because children are not CONSENTING ADULTS.
19 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by jobowski 6 years ago
jobowski
CobjobKleptinTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 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:34 
Vote Placed by 1gambittheman1 6 years ago
1gambittheman1
CobjobKleptinTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
CobjobKleptinTied
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:70 
Vote Placed by JBlake 8 years ago
JBlake
CobjobKleptinTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by Robert_Santurri 8 years ago
Robert_Santurri
CobjobKleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by Tatarize 8 years ago
Tatarize
CobjobKleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by solo 9 years ago
solo
CobjobKleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by Cobjob 9 years ago
Cobjob
CobjobKleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by Derrida 9 years ago
Derrida
CobjobKleptinTied
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 
Vote Placed by Paco3837 9 years ago
Paco3837
CobjobKleptinTied
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