The Instigator
ConsciousSpirit
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
RoyLatham
Con (against)
Winning
40 Points

Homosexuality is a perversion

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 8 votes the winner is...
RoyLatham
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/10/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 6,580 times Debate No: 11386
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (15)
Votes (8)

 

ConsciousSpirit

Pro

I would first like to say that this will be my first debate on debate.org and I am so grateful to have a forum such as this to express views and learn. I would like to keep this debate on the topic of the sexual relationship between two men and how it is or isn't against natural laws of reproduction and the human psych.

In this debate I will propose that homosexual acts are acts of sexual perversion as well as a psychological disorder and have become an accepted perversion amongst the biased progressive liberal agenda who refrain from debating the issue and would rather attack someone as bigoted if they express views that are against homosexuality. First, I will define the word itself as noted from Dictionary.com

per��ver��sion�€‚ �€‚[per-vur-zhuhn, -shuhn] Show IPA
�€"noun
1.
the act of perverting.
2.
the state of being perverted.
3.
a perverted form of something.
4.
any of various means of obtaining sexual gratification that are generally regarded as being abnormal.
5.
Pathology. a change to what is unnatural or abnormal: a perversion of function or structure.
--
As from the definition of Perversion, we see that the act of Homosexuality is indeed a perversion- as the acts of sex are essentially to reproduce between male and female and the acts that the male and female do with one another are preordained by nature. Keep in mind, my argument is not what male and females do together to form perversions but rather what two men do together to form perversions. We see from other perversions such as incest, beastiality, and pedophilia and we as society deem those select forms of perversions to be unacceptable. When we look at the argument of the pro-gay movement we see that they will commonly say that homosexuals are born this way or maybe have a chemical imbalance that set them apart from the norm.

I would like to ask the audience, is this not hypocrisy? Could we not as easily say the pedophile or person who finds animals sexually attractive was simply born this way or maybe themselves have a chemical balance which leads them inept to have a biological relationship that is needed for life and handed down by the laws of nature or God?

It appears that we, as a nation of laws, pick and choose which perversions we seem fit. When we allow one perversion to be accepted, what is next to follow? In the current society we live in, we imprison pedophiles rather than sending them to seek psychological guidance or evaluation. We imprison pedophiles not because they were born that way, we do this because we as a society have deemed that molesting a child is morally wrong and against the normal human psych. It is evident in the current American social structure, as noted by previous elections and proposition 8 in California(one of the most liberal states in the union) that society as whole regards homosexual as abnormal and morally unacceptable, as we see with other sexual perversions such as pedophilia. I will now leave to the floor to m
RoyLatham

Con

I haven't debated this topic in quite a while. It will be interesting to try it with a 3000 character limit ... almost a Twitter debate.

Pro makes two basic errors: (1) that "normal" is defined by an average rather than a distribution and (2) that it is logical to consider all departures from average equivalently as perversions.

1. "Normal" is a distribution

In 1948, Kinsey documented that there is a continuum from strictly heterosexual to strictly homosexual, which he represented with a seven point scale from 0 to 6. http://www.kinseyinstitute.org... About 4.5% of the population is near the strictly-homosexual end of the scale. That necessarily implies that the average is something short of strict heterosexuality. If zeros are in the average, it has to be less than six. But Pro insists that departure from average is perversion, so therefore strict heterosexuals are, by that definition, perverts.

2. Some behavior is harmful, some not

The population of asexuals is about half the size of the homosexual population, around 2% or so. http://en.wikipedia.org... Asexuals have no desire to have sex. Pro argues that all "perversions" ought to be treated the same, otherwise we cannot logically draw a line. That implies that asexuals should be shunned and morally condemned as vigorously as any other "abnormal" group, but there seems to be very little outrage expressed. Now that Pro knows about the abnormal asexual group, will he advocate legislation against them?

The intensity of sexual desire is also a continuum, as so there are highly sexually active people in the population, who are "perverts" with respect to the average.

Where society draws the line with "perversion" ought to be with respect to the harm it does to others. One can construct an argument against asexuality along the lines of "if it spread and everyone became asexual, the population would die out." But once the distribution of sexual expression is understood, it's clear that is not a problem. It isn't going to catch on, because the nature of humans is what it is.

Homosexuality is not going to "catch on" either. Perhaps tolerance will result in somewhat more expression of homosexuality among those who are 1 or 2 on the seven point scale, but it's no threat to society as a whole. It is possible that homosexuality is a benefit to society as a whole by serving as a mechanism for population control, triggered by pre-natal stress. There is some evidence of that. http://www.viewzone.com...

Pro pointed to the success of Proposition 8 in California as evidence that homosexuality was viewed as "morally unacceptable." Not at all, California provides civil unions for homosexuals and equal rights under the state constitution. Proposition 8 was solely about use of the word "marriage." People still prefer the traditional usage.

The classification of homosexuality as "perversion" fails.
Debate Round No. 1
ConsciousSpirit

Pro

I would first like to thank Con for taking on the topic. The topic of this debate was not asexuality as a perversion in comparison to homosexuality, this is a clear attempt to red herring the argument. Asexuals are irrelevant to the discussion because, as con stated, they are unable to even have a perversion because they lack the interest to have sex, granted they may enjoy the spiritual relationship with people. 3,000 characters is plenty if Con would of debated the issue of homosexuals being natural or not perverse rather than Asexuals.

Con also seems to want to make his own definition of what a perversion is. Rather than disproving my statement that homosexuality is a perversion, Con makes his new definition of perversion by insisting that it is only a perversion if it is "harmful" to society. My argument was the hypocrisy of calling homosexuality a normal way of life if it is the only way of life they know. I stated that pedophiles and other sexual perverts are only attracted to their perversion as a homosexual is only attracted to his perversion. I will again define the word Perversion for Con. Perversion - any of various means of obtaining sexual gratification that are generally regarded as being abnormal-Dictionary.com

It is self evident that homosexuals, like people who are sexually attracted to animals, is abnormal. I put forth the notion that there may be a link in a chemical imbalance in sexual interest. Con made an attempt to show that I would imprison asexuals like homosexuals, this is false. I clearly stated that some perverts need psychological evaluation rather than prison.

Con then argues that Homosexuality may be a "benefit to society as whole for serving as a mechanism for population control". I ask the audience, what does this have to do with the topic of homosexuality being a perversion? Birth Control is a mechanism for population control, not homosexuality.

Con has failed to refute my notion that Homosexuality is indeed a perversion. I ask the audience to set aside their own personal bias or sexual interest and acknowledge that homosexual behavior is not preordained by nature and is in fact a perversion because it is in its very nature abnormal. I have over 600 characters still remaining, but instead, I'll leave to the floor open to Con to attempt to disprove my original claim that homosexuality is a perversion.
RoyLatham

Con

Pro stated the objective of the debate as, "I would like to keep this debate on the topic of the sexual relationship between two men and how it is or isn't against natural laws of reproduction and the human psych [psyche]." Pro claimed "I will propose [prove] that homosexual acts are acts of sexual perversion as well as a psychological disorder ..."

In R1 I established that homosexuality is not "against the natural laws ..." because the "norm" is a statistical distribution. Pro's error is comparable to saying that the normal outcome of a spin of a roulette wheel is 18, because that is the average. The norm for human behavior is a spectrum of behaviors. I gave references, Pro offered no contradicting data. Furthermore, the scientific opinion is clear: "As a result of Hooker's finding, the APA [American Psychiatric Association] removed homosexuality from its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychological Disorders in 1973. In 1975 it then released a public statement that homosexuality was not a mental disorder." In 1994, they added, "...homosexuality is neither a mental illness nor a moral depravity." http://allpsych.com...

The example I gave of asexuality shows that his broad definition of "perversion" is wrong. It is sexual behavior every bit as "abnormal" and "contrary to function" as homosexuality, but Pro seems to admit it is not a perversion. The example also demonstrates clearly that we should indeed pick and choose what behaviors we tolerate and which we do not. We ought to tolerate the behaviors that do little or no harm, and be concerned about behaviors that cause harm.

Pro now relies upon the "generally regarded" part of "generally regarded as being abnormal." The "generally regarded" makes "perversion" subject to prevailing opinion. Thus ordinary sexual behaviors like masturbation and al sex have been "perversions" in past times under Pro's definition. Does Pro agree that even if the public proclaims it a "perversion," that is not grounds to take any action, socially or legally, against it? As a matter of language that is one thing, but Pro claims that society should act against homosexuality as a consequence of its being merely thought perverse.

In modern society, homosexuality is generally accepted as part of the normal spectrum of behavior. Pro offered one argument in support of his contention that the public considers homosexuality a perversion, the California rejection of Prop 8. I refuted that; it was about the word "marriage." Pro has not countered, nor produced other evidence about public sentiment.

Pro contended that homosexuality was "against the natural laws of reproduction." I showed why it might support the natural laws of reproduction. Does he now abandon his original claim? Which of his claims does he still defend? Pro offers no evidence supporting any of his contentions, only his own opinions.

The resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 2
ConsciousSpirit

Pro

We are not here to define what makes "normal"-normal. Con has yet to get us a creditable answer to why it is NOT a perversion. Con also makes the error of confusing homosexuality with homosexual acts. A "straight" man can have sexual fantasies about men but never carry out the act therefore society will not see him as a homosexual. I have laid out my key source to this debate numerous times - dictionary.com.

Con then quotes what I have said earlier in R1 and proves me correct when I said we pick and chose which perversions we wish to accept, I thank him for that. I then made the comparison how pedophiles are deemed untouchable for their perversion while homosexuals aren't and stated it as an hypocrisy because they are both parties of perverts in the definition of perversion. Con then asks for evidence that should be self evident, is he to ask for evidence of gravity or oxygen as well?

Con attempts to equate masturbation to the same level of perversion as homosexuality, as I stated in R1 - Homosexual is abnormal even nature. Masturbation however is not because we often see animals pleasing themselves, I refer Con to any Zoo or local dog park for that source. Subject material may be to graphic for this forum.

Con attempted in R1 to defend homosexuality as a means to control population growth and I again ask, how does this argument relate to his burden of proving that homosexuality is not perversion. That is an entirely different debate. I will for the third time define perversion for Con - "any of various means of obtaining sexual gratification that are generally regarded as being abnormal". In R1 I provided evidence for homosexuality being a perversion not because of psychology but because it is "generally regarded as being abnormal". Society as a whole deems what is psychologically appropriate, I refer Con to any election. Again, I thought these truths would be self evident, my apologies.

Con then attempts to make me debate proposition 8 and claims to have refuted my argument, this is erroneous. The argument I presented was that society as a whole deems Gays as "abnormal". If they were normal, they would be able to marry right along side straight people, so no Con did NOT refute my argument.

So we are to ask ourselves- "Is homosexuality a perversion" and the obvious answer by definition alone is Yes. Can straight people have perversions? Yes, but that is not the topic of the debate. The topic of the debate is "Homosexuality is a perversion". To defend this statement I have asked Con to open a dictionary. We are not here to debate the authenticity of the word perversion or what it should be. Con has made a great attempt to red herring the argument several ways by giving examples of OTHER perversions but has yet to give an answer to why he can not change the meaning of the word perversion to better fit his argument.

Until more than 51% of men are sexually attracted to one another, Homosexuality is a Perversion.
RoyLatham

Con

The resolution is "Homosexuality is a perversion." He offers definitions of perversion that include "various means of obtaining sexual gratification that are generally regarded as being abnormal," and "a change to what is unnatural or abnormal."

The first definition has to do with "what is considered unnatural." Science has established that humans encompass a spectrum of behaviors that are normal for the species. What people consider abnormal depends on the times. Pro has the burden of proving that people now consider homosexually outside of the range that is natural and normal. He might, for example, have offered up a poll, but he did not produce any such evidence. No one thinks that homosexuality is as common as heterosexuality, but people today are sophisticated enough to recognize the distinction between "uncommon" and "perverted." In California the constitution grants equal legal rights to homosexuals, but maintains the traditional meaning of the word "marriage." That shows considerable sophistication in recognizing the distinction between "uncommon" and "perverted."

Pro claims that any election that does not endorse gay marriage proves that it is considered abnormal, and hence a perversion. This assumes that people are voting based upon condemnation of perversion rather than upon the traditional definition of heterosexual marriage. He offers no evidence that is the case.

Pro's second definition concerns "what is unnatural." Pro claimed he would show homosexuality is "against natural laws of reproduction and the human psych[e]." To prove they are unnatural he said he would show that homosexual acts are "a psychological disorder."

I disagreed with this second definition. I pointed out that there are things like asexuality that are as unnatural as homosexuality, but not considered perversions. I also disputed the claim directly. I provided evidence that homosexuality was within the normal spectrum of behavior, and that the American Psychological Society took the official position that it was not a mental disorder. Pro presented no contrary scientific evidence.

In this round, Pro claimed that "Homosexual[ity] is abnormal even [in] nature." He contrasts homosexuality with masturbation, which while once considered a perversion is, he says, proved not so by its being observed in nature. Homosexuality, however, is in fact common in nature. http://en.wikipedia.org... It has been observed in over 200 species of mammals. http://en.wikipedia.org... I explained why it was natural.

Pro says, "Con has yet to get us a creditable answer to why it is NOT a perversion." Pro bears the burden of proving that it is. Now people accept that "normal" encompasses homosexuality. Science supports that conclusion. Pro only presents his opinions.

The resolution is negated.
Debate Round No. 3
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 1 year ago
RoyLatham
@KingDAJ, This is an old debate, back when all the voting was secret. You pretty much had to vote for yourself because you would assume that your opponent would vote for himself. In the new system, debaters are locked out of voting and all the votes are public.

If you want to get more opinions, you can start a debate or go to the forums. There are plenty of people on both sides eager to tell you what they think.
Posted by KingDAJ 1 year ago
KingDAJ
This is unfortunate. While both parties presented many notable points, the audience here is apparently extremely biased. The commentary not really providing any additional commentary to the debate or sharing there own opinions, people coming in with one opinion and voting for that same position on all points, if not, voting tie as if they didn't want to vote at all. (Because they didn't want to credit pro) Heck, even Con voted for himself.

I really wished to see people's opinion's on this matter, really analyze it and critically think about it, both parties gave A LOT to think about it and discuss in a very well debated topic, but audience failed to deliver. The voting here is a very poor representation of the outcome of this debate.
Posted by ConsciousSpirit 4 years ago
ConsciousSpirit
I didn't accuse him of being anything, like him..I was asking questions out of curiosity. But yeah now that I look at it - it does seem kind of trolly. My apologies Puck. No offense intended!
Posted by belle 4 years ago
belle
randomly accusing people of being gay because they disagree with you; seems trollish to me.
Posted by ConsciousSpirit 4 years ago
ConsciousSpirit
How so belle? Also, thanks a lot for the debate! I should of made it longer, there were a lot of issues I wanted to touch on.
Posted by belle 4 years ago
belle
you're the one acting like a troll CS :P
Posted by Puck 4 years ago
Puck
No I am not gay, if that is your question, nor do I engage in 'perversion' as you define it. Nor am I trolling, simply wishing to see how far you extend your premise of perversion to see if you are at basic consistent. Nor was my other comment 'troll like' I do indeed find your arguments amusing.
Posted by ConsciousSpirit 4 years ago
ConsciousSpirit
I don't think you read the debate or you're trolling me because you posted a troll like comment on my other debate. The topic of this debate was two men and is it a perversion or not. I laid out my case, feel free to read it. I'm sensing a personal bias from you, are you yourself taking parts in the acts I stated and taking offense to my notion?
Posted by Puck 4 years ago
Puck
Oops ignore, wrong page. :)
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by kingofslash5 4 years ago
kingofslash5
ConsciousSpiritRoyLathamTied
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 
Vote Placed by jamsjamsjams 4 years ago
jamsjamsjams
ConsciousSpiritRoyLathamTied
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:04 
Vote Placed by tochter_aus_elysium 4 years ago
tochter_aus_elysium
ConsciousSpiritRoyLathamTied
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 hrvdbnd2013 4 years ago
hrvdbnd2013
ConsciousSpiritRoyLathamTied
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 RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
ConsciousSpiritRoyLathamTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Vote Placed by cactusbin 4 years ago
cactusbin
ConsciousSpiritRoyLathamTied
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 
Vote Placed by belle 4 years ago
belle
ConsciousSpiritRoyLathamTied
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:05 
Vote Placed by Korashk 4 years ago
Korashk
ConsciousSpiritRoyLathamTied
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