The Instigator
frozen_eclipse
Pro (for)
Winning
30 Points
The Contender
david.palbino
Con (against)
Losing
7 Points

Homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality

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...
frozen_eclipse
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/23/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,525 times Debate No: 27457
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (43)
Votes (8)

 

frozen_eclipse

Pro

I will argue that homosexuality is comparatively as natural as heterosexuality. I will ask whoever my opponent is to not use any religious arguments as debate terms due to the fact that the person who uses religious arguments are mostly close minded and will stubbornly defend religious beliefs witch cannot be concluded as conductive arguments but relies on inductive points at best since religion itself is an inductive argument based on probability. My position will be based on philosophical and ethical reasoning. Along with comparative, supporting evidence. I don't fee any of these word need to be defined but for the sae of non-semanticism I will define natural. However my opponent can introduce definitions if he wishes.

Natural- 1. of nature: relating to nature
2.conforming with nature: in accordance with the usual course of nature
3.produced by nature: present in or produced by nature, not artificial or synthetic

NO SEMATICS

Debate structure will be as follows.

Round 1-introduction statements.
Round 2-positions.
Round 3- rebuttals.
Round 4-refutations.
Round 5- closing statements/ final refutation.
david.palbino

Con


Dear members of debate.org


It is true that homosexuality (bi-sexuality) happens in nature, and among bonobos it happens even more than heterosexuality, but let's be honest from a darwinian point of view same sex relationships do not produce descendants. Pure homosexuality have to die out simply because they don't produce children.



A good question we should ask our selves is if x is natural, does it mean that x is good? Or if y is unnatural does it mean that y is bad?


I'm bringing this topic because I believe there is nothing bad on homosexuality.


Lets imagine that x is a tornado and y is the flu vaccine or artificial boobs.



In any case for most of the species most of the individuals prefer heterosexual relationships.


For this reason ask everyone to oppose the motion.




Debate Round No. 1
frozen_eclipse

Pro

I will post my case this round and focus on reffuting my opponents next round.

Homosexuality occurs in nature by humans and other organisms making homosexuality a nature more than an act.

The statement i just made is very important.

A. If homosexuality is more act than natural impulse that means it can be controlled and is most likely a choice.
B. If homosexuality is driven by natural attraction and not so much an act then it must be a naural occurence.

Homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality. I believe this to be fact due to a compilation of facts and logic. My first point will attempt to prove that homosexuality is not limited to only humans but animals as well witch may lead us to believe that homosexality does occur in nature and may support my point that homosexuality is indeed natural or at least as natural as heterosexuality. This would indeed fit the definition of natural because this is something naturaly produced by nature and not so much can be turned on and off like a switch witch would mean organisims do not havethe choice to stop being attracted to the same sex. Now there isnt a reliable way to test this in animals however this point can be proven by oberving the behavior of homosexual humans witch i will get to.First I will show proof that homosexuality is natural in the way that it is naturaly occuring in nature etc...

"Female mice 'can be turned lesbian by deleting gene' Female mice can be turned "lesbian" by deleting a single gene at embryo stage, scientists have discovered".....http://www.telegraph.co.uk......

Around 2,300 years ago, Aristotle had already described the remarkable behaviour of a group of hyenas: males flirting with males, females pleasuring females. But the idea of gay marriage in the animal kingdom never really fitted into the scientists' world view, and so was all too often ignored.

""Homosexuality has been observed for more than 1,500 animal species, and is well documented for 500 of them."
http://gaylife.about.com......

"Scientists at California’s Monterrey Bay Aquarium Research Institute and the University of Rhode Island recently reported on the same-sex mating habits of Octopoteuthis deletron, a deep-sea squid that indiscriminately shoots sperm packets onto both male and female squids passing by."

"O. deletron isn’t alone in its same-sex sexual behavior. In a review article published in 2009, biologists Nathan Bailey and Marlene Zuk at the University of California, Riverside, noted that “many thousands of instances of same-sex courtship, pair bonding and copulation have been observed in a wide range of species, including mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, insects, mollusks and nematodes.”

Some animals, when given a choice, show a preference for the same sex, and researchers have even ascribed a same-sex sexual orientation to members of certain species. Read on for some fascinating examples."

http://www.popsci.com......

I will provide some pictures of animals engaging in homosexual activity and I will describe how we know the animals are the same sex.

http://www.kontraband.com......

I believe these are moose's and female moose's don't have huge antlers like these two do. So both of these are males.

http://www.kontraband.com......

Only male lions grow manes. So both of these are males.

http://www.kontraband.com......

Obviously we see two antlers and a buck and there having a threesome.

http://www.kontraband.com......

This one is just too funny....lol

http://www.environmentteam.com......

This last one is a compilation of gay activity by animals.

Now im very aware that just because animals and humans engage in homosexual behavior that doesnt mean its natural. However if i can observe a species wanting to have heterosexual attraction but cannot this will prove my point.

In these examples homosexual humans wanto be heterosexual but cannot.

http://www.oasisjournals.com...

http://www.steadyhealth.com...

Homosexuality is not a choice.

There are no definitive studies to prove this because scientists don't know what to measure. However this can be proven with resoning as can all things. Why would a gay person want to be straight and cannot do it without leing to themselves and others if homosexuality wasn't in that persons biological make up? Why would any person choose to be bullied,have some of their human rights stripped of them, be deprived of liberty, possibly life, and the pursuit of happiness to defend a choice? it simply is not worth it.Nor does it make sense. Gay people cannot change what they are attracted to. Gay males ae wired to testosterone for attraction. Gay females are wired to estrogen for attraction.Some are wired to both. This cannot be changed on and off like a light switch because ones attraction to hormones are the way they are from birth till death. nothing can change that( except the controversial subect of gene manipulation, for instance the rat experiment.).

The Bandwagon Fallacy

Most people these days believe that what happens by majority is the correct way to go. This is simply not true if a majority of people say that rape and murder is okay does that really make it ethical? Of course not the majority rules concept is simply a collective opinion and is not always fact. Now back to the topic. Humans when faced with the question of the naturality of homosexuality measure the question usually with the following Question, What does majority of society think? and how many homosexuals are their? and lastly witch class has more people? typically the awnsers are homosexuality is a choice,few, and heterosexuals. There is a problem with all of this. We cannot follow the bandwaon fallacy in this matter to decide fact. We cannot measure the numbers of homosexuals because most wont admit to their nature. Lastly since we cannot accuratly count the numbers this is an invalid measure. The last thing i want to say on this point is who are heterosexuals to say their way of life is more natural than homosexuals? Is it really just because there seems to be more straight than gay people i the world? Whos not to say that homosexuals are designed correctly and that heterosexuals have the problem? Know one truely knows. One could easily say, " homosexuals arnt designed to reproduce."

Homosexuals have the ability to reproduce.

Whenever i hear this claim i always question if humans think we are only here on this earth to reproduce? However there is a hole in this claim. First homosexuals can easily reproduce by simply havng sex with the opposite. They don't nessisarly have to be attracted to one another to have sex or to get excited for that matter. Yes we have male and female and only male and female can produce another gender. that much is true however a homosexual couple can seek out the opposite sex to have a child anytime they want to in various ways other than the easily assumed. Also not every heterosexual couple reproduces. We don't have sex all the time with the intent of producing children. Most of the time it's for fun and or because the two are in love. So with that being said just because a homosexual couple can't reproduce with themselves they can still reproduce at any time they want. lasty humans are not created with the intense urge to reproduce. So what im trying to say here is that an organisms methods of reproducing may be different than the way the majority of the species does it. However that does not mean the organism that does something different is not natural. however organisms are created they are still created to with the ability for their species to reproduce. As long as the organisms have the tools to reproduce it can still reproduce as long as conditions are met.

As far as im aware homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality. Some things differ however all things are natural between the two. Sadly im running out of characters and will say more next round. A pro vote is a logical response to this debate.







david.palbino

Con



Please be brave show your name, your face and do a video response.

My english is not so great, so I decided to post the speech:

Frozen eclipse, If you want to claim that homosexuality is something normal,I have very little to add, you will not find any intelectual honest person who will tell you the oposite, but I have a lot to say to out couple of commentators,

I will start with you anyway: First of all, non or your links works, even if they work, news papers are not reliable sources of information, every time I write in a news paper, they manipulate the content, you need to find scientific journal papers, I promise, they are very good experiments showing a genetic origin of homosexuality.

I have to say that you are wrong about scientist don't work with the concept of homosexual couples, because we do. (seach in youtube for dawkins on homosexuality).

The argument of we having sex just for fun is a bad argument because in the stone age condoms were extremely expensive, so our ancestor may had children even if they did not want.

Homosexuals can reproduce only if they have heterosexual sex, that is why is so hard to understand pure homosexuality, but not that hard to understand bi-sexuality.

We already agree that “natural” means that it happens in nature.

Homosexuality happens in nature, but it happens less often than heterosexuality or bi-sexuality.

Anyone who thinks only humans have homosexuality is an ignoramus, but maybe is not your fault, maybe your parents poison your mind with religion.

Anyone who claims that homosexuality is inmoral is a moron, homosexuals do not kill other people in the name of their sexual preferences, religious people do kill other people in the name of their religion.

It is very interesting that konjum presents himself like a gay man who claim to think homosexuality is unnatural, it is too stupid to be true.

And Muted, just prove to be and ignorant with the argument about cannibalism. Cannibalism is very natural among insects, but it doesn’t mean it is natural among humans.

By the way, bi-sexuality use to be very common, in humans during the times of romans, and apparently in arab countries homosexual relations are more popular than heterosexual relationships in spite of having dead penalty for if.

Please forgive me if I gave the impression about going to speak againts homosexuality, my point was that pure homosexuality is an interesting phenomena that we don’t fully understand.

PD:
As expected it is not permited to post links... :-(
But if you make a video response, you can post your links in your youtube video


Debate Round No. 2
frozen_eclipse

Pro

So it seems some of my links didn't work. So I'm going to post some links in the corresponding order. I used some of these links from a old case so some I may not be able to find the information again, in this case I will find supporting information.

1. http://www.zmescience.com...

2. http://www.livescience.com...

3. http://www.popsci.com...

4. (the male moose) http://www.thedogscojones.com...

5. ( lions, elephants, giraffes,Japanese macaque, giraffe, bonobos ( all males)).....http://scienceray.com...

The human examples work so I won't repost those.


Hopefully these work for everyone. If not feel free copy and paste to your search engine and you will find the same information.

Now to address this rounds rebuttal.

my opponent stated, "I have to say that you are wrong about scientist don't work with the concept of homosexual couples, because we do. (search in you tube for dawkins on homosexuality)."

This seems to be the statement I made in question..."There are no definitive studies to prove this because scientists don't know what to measure."

As we can see I never said scientists don't work with the concept of homosexuality. I stated that there are no absolutely conclusive and accepted by the scientific community, studies in favor of homosexuality being natural.

Opponent stated, "The argument of we having sex just for fun is a bad argument because in the stone age condoms were extremely expensive, so our ancestor may had children even if they did not want."

I completely disagree and still support the statement I made. We have sex because were in the heat of the moment to have fun and or feel good, or to reproduce. The stone age condom however isn't a good counter argument due to the fact that in the stone age children didn't have much protective laws and consequences for missing children. Instead of preventing the birth with contraceptives, those in earlier times simply ended the child's life if they didn't want it and could continue having sex for fun if they wanted.

Con further stated, "Homosexuals can reproduce only if they have heterosexual sex, that is why is so hard to understand pure homosexuality, but not that hard to understand bi-sexuality."

Let me first state that it's only hard to understand because your trying to rationalize by comparing it to another normal process that woks in a different way. I contend that one should not try to rationalize this way due to the many states of existence in nature and the many different ways organisms reproduce in nature. They may not seem normal to the humans that think there is a so-called " right way to reproduce" ( huge mistake in thinking if someone actually thinks that quote is true.) My major counterargument to this point is the following witch is a contention I want to add to my case. Has anyone ever thought that organisms can evolve their ways of reproduction? In case someone thinks no let me show it has happened. Or atleast that it's highly probable.

Researchers from livescience state, "Many species are hermaphrodites," Bockman said. Hermaphrodites have both male and female sex organs. A lot of marine species have no sex life at all, but just squirt their eggs or semen into sea. Some creatures even reproduce asexually, by dividing themselves into two organisms. In one species of gecko, females clone themselves." ( look under mom dad and dad)

http://www.livescience.com...


Con further states, "Homosexuality happens in nature, but it happens less often than heterosexuality or bi-sexuality."

As I have earlier stated there is no accurate way to count all of these types because not every person is willing to admit or tell the truth about their sexuality. So in effect this point is rendered invalid. If the day comes when their are no threats for a person for coming out of the closet then we could quantify the data.


As for the rest of cons case it massively supports my case therefore I have no reason to refute the rest of his case.
I have proven my contentions to be factual. Homosexuality occurs in nature by humans and other organisms making homosexuality a nature more than an act , Homosexuality is not a choice, The Bandwagon Fallacy , Homosexuals Have The Ability To Reproduce, lastly I have introduced the strong possibility that Organisms may have evolved their methods of reproduction. My opponent also seems to agree with the contentions presented by pro. For these reasons I find it logical to support a pro ballot.

david.palbino

Con


I have very little to argue, we agree en everything except our own interpretation of the term “as natural as”.



Homosexual relation do not produce children, that is why preferring homosexual relationships do not fit in the same category as being left-handed, however gay people are criminalized in the same way left-handed people.


You really have to be a moron to claim that homosexuality is something “bad”, it may be bad for your genes, but there is nothing evil about it.



In our current world, most of sexual relations in arab countries are homosexual, and they don't get out of the closet because there is dead penalty for being homosexual.


Apparently bi-sexuality use to be the rule along human history.


In bonobos (our closet specie) homosexual relationships are lot more frequent than heterosexual relationships.


If you want we can debate about if there is being bi-sexual is the rule rather that the exception on humans.


But if the debate is about if being homosexual is bad, then we have nothing to talk about.


You have all intellectuals at one side saying that homosexuality is not bad and all morons and religious people at the other using they holly book which tell them to kill homosexuals.



By the way, this web site do not allow to add links to your speech.


Debate Round No. 3
frozen_eclipse

Pro

My opponent seems to agree with my case therefore there is no need to continue much of this debate since my opponents position as been terminated. However there still are some minimal concerns my opponent has and I will address them.

He says he doesn't think homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality because homo couples don't produce children. I have already tackled this type of claim earlier but I will restate my counterclaim. Humans main purpose in life is not to reproduce. If every human in existence wanted to reproduce along with their partners then this point would be strong. Also there is that fact that homosexuals can reproduce. Maybe not with the same gender but they can reproduce. Love or even liking someone is not needed to reproduce in straight or gay people whatsoever. Gay people reproduce in the same ways that heterosexuals do. As we can see homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality on many levels.

Also his comparing gay people to left handed people doesn't make sense to me. Are you maybe trying to say that left and right hands are no different because their still hands?

Con also made the flawed statement that homosexuality is bad for your genes. How so? It sounds like your trying to say all homosexuals have bad genes. Logically speaking, Who is anyone to say their genes are good at all? A homosexuals genes are by no way any more "bad" than a heterosexual persons genes.

Cons last statement was that DDO does not allow debaters to post sources. This is obviously not true. If we were not allowed to post sites then why does the site ask voters to give points to the debater who provided more reliable sources?
david.palbino

Con

We don't agree in homosexual = bisexual.

If yo never have a heterosexual sex, then you can't reproduce, but if you do both, then you can reproduce, and that is very well observed in nature.

Bi sexuality is natural and we can argue about if it is as frecuent as heterosexuality, pure homosexuality is not that common and it doen't make sense from a biological prespective.

Finally I just want to recomend to read:


Why is the Penis Shaped Like That? And Other Reflections On Being Human
by Jesse Bering


It bring lots of interesting details about how homosexual relations work and why it is that frencuent.
It also mention that canimalism is natural and it is reproducible in laboratory conditions, aparently a Japanesse lab manage to get permission from the etics commity to put monkeys in conditions in which they start eating the dead bodies of the othrers.

I don't think I have anythink else to say for this debate.
Debate Round No. 4
frozen_eclipse

Pro

I will not debate about bisexuality because that is not my resolution. Also it is impossible argue if homosexuality or bisexuality occurs equal to or less than heterosexuality. I have already addressed why. There is a huge grey hole in the data because everyone will not admit their sexuality. It would also be a logical flaw to judge the naturally of somethings existence by judging how many of these beings exist. This way of weighing an issue is nothing but the bandwagon fallacy.

We cannot judge accurately if homosexuality is less prevalent than heterosexuality because of the reasons stated I my case.

I've never said homosexuality equals homosexuality. I believe my opponent is confused about his readings.
Lastly the statement con made is false that you can't reproduce unless one has sex with a heterosexual person. First of all hermaphrodites don't need to have sex with either genders to make babies, So as we see this statement is absurd. Further more, a lesbian can have sex with a gay man just for the purpose of procreating. Reproduction is not a good argument against homosexuality. Straight people have sex for more than one reason than making babies. Same goes for homosexuals. Just because one organisms method of reproducing is different from the status quo does not make that being more natural than the other at all. It just means that that humans don't have sex just to reproduce obviously and this is evidence for it. ( I don't want to repeat myself so for any other concerns or flaws in logic presented by my opponent please refer to my case because I have rebuttaled everything he has claimed so far.)

So as we can see homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality. Both occurs in nature by natural processes and both are absolutely natural as each other. There are some differences however just because your left hand is different from your right does not mean that one hand is better or more natural than the other. I feel the audience should vote for pro because, Homosexuality occurs in nature by humans and other organisms making homosexuality a nature more than an act , Homosexuality is not a choice, The Bandwagon Fallacy , Homosexuals Have The Ability To Reproduce, lastly I have introduced the strong possibility that Organisms may have evolved their methods of reproduction. For these reasons I suggest a pro vote.
david.palbino

Con


What it have to do that other species evolve with just 1 sex or with 5 different sexes (you only need to meet one guy of any other 4 sexes to reproduce).


We have aqueologists and we can see quite accurately that very few roman emperors were heterosexual, (that happen before Christianity arrives to earth), we also can see that in Arab countries most sexual relations are done by members of the same sex, so we know with quite good precision that bisexuality use to be more common than homosexuality.


Debate Round No. 5
43 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by david.palbino 4 years ago
david.palbino
I'm afraid that is true, people are vias, and usually ignoramus

by the way, kingcripple thanks for the vote.
Posted by frozen_eclipse 4 years ago
frozen_eclipse
its obvious kingcripple was baised. How in the world did my opponent win spelling and grammer? Crazy.
Posted by david.palbino 4 years ago
david.palbino
wrichcirw, Challenge acepted,
I'm going for holidays, but in two weeks time you can have your wish.
Posted by johnlubba 4 years ago
johnlubba
@David Palbino,

Incoherent.
Posted by wrichcirw 4 years ago
wrichcirw
I wouldn't mind attempting to debate this as CON.
Posted by david.palbino 4 years ago
david.palbino
Johnlubba, I'm sorry to disapoint you but this is a debate between educated people, the fact that you find homosexuality repulsive is just an indicator for woman that you will not leave them for a man.
Posted by johnlubba 4 years ago
johnlubba
I disagree with the title of the debate, it certainly is not natural for me, in fact I find even the thought of homosexual men repulsive.

But I am entitled to my opinion right? just like the homo's.
Posted by frozen_eclipse 4 years ago
frozen_eclipse
Wow im extremely suprised with the votes. I honestly didnt think i was going to get that many points wow.
Posted by frozen_eclipse 4 years ago
frozen_eclipse
thinger you are singing volumes of what i am trying to express.
Posted by thigner 4 years ago
thigner
As one of straight, I think we must think of the right we are granted. It's really important how to define gay as abnormal or normal. And also, I have huge doubt on we, people who think we are normal, have the daring duty to make decisions and defining their existences as nature or unnatural.

All human beings have their dignity and they must keep it in their hearts.

If we can't make gays back to be straight, we are on the way to depriving their own basic right of love.

And also, to keep using their non-reproducing ability as your weapon, what would you define those who don't have ability of reproducing since they were born?
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by emospongebob527 4 years ago
emospongebob527
frozen_eclipsedavid.palbinoTied
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:70 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter kingcripple
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
frozen_eclipsedavid.palbinoTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con essentially conceded.
Vote Placed by kingcripple 4 years ago
kingcripple
frozen_eclipsedavid.palbinoTied
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: I am beginning to think this site is biased against anyone who has a differing opinion from "gay is ok"
Vote Placed by GorefordMaximillion 4 years ago
GorefordMaximillion
frozen_eclipsedavid.palbinoTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro makes better arguments. The Darwinian argument is a good one and could be developed though.
Vote Placed by iamnotwhoiam 4 years ago
iamnotwhoiam
frozen_eclipsedavid.palbinoTied
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:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con ended up agreeing with pro.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
frozen_eclipsedavid.palbinoTied
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: Both sides agree that homosexuality occurs in nature. Pro defined "natural" as occurring in nature. Con accepted the debate with that definition in place. Persuasion: Pro.
Vote Placed by rross 4 years ago
rross
frozen_eclipsedavid.palbinoTied
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:50 
Reasons for voting decision: Con seemed to agree with pro's position almost from the start.
Vote Placed by The_Chaos_Heart 4 years ago
The_Chaos_Heart
frozen_eclipsedavid.palbinoTied
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:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro easily showed that homosexuality occurs in other animal species in nature, thereby proving it is a "natural" occurrence, and consequently, "as natural as" heterosexuality. Sources for Pro for having so many, and so many reliable ones. I also feel Con's grammar was a little off, so I'm giving that to Pro as well. Both debaters were civil and seemed to put their best foot forward, so I give a tie for conduct.