The Instigator
kingcripple
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
jam20636
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points

Homosexuality is completely natural and normal in humans and thus should be accepted into society

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 1 vote the winner is...
jam20636
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/12/2014 Category: Society
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 817 times Debate No: 48971
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (5)
Votes (1)

 

kingcripple

Con

So, I would like to debate whether homosexuality is normal and natural in humans causing a need for it to be accepted into society. I will be taking the con position. I will also leave the 1st round open for my opponent to make his/her opening statements. Also since you will be taking the pro position, BoP is on you. I will do rebuttals and such after your opening statements.

Rules

RD 1 Acceptance and Opening statements for Pro

RD 2-4 My Opening statements, Rebuttals and cross examinations from both parties

RD 5 Closing statements

Definitions

Homosexuality- the quality or state of being homosexual; erotic activity with someone of the same sex [1]

Natural- existing in nature and not made or caused by people; coming from nature[2]

Nature- the physical world and everything in it (such as plants, animals, mountains, oceans, stars, etc.) that is not made by people[3]

Society- people in general thought of as living together in organized communities with shared laws, traditions, and values; the people of a particular country, area, time, etc., thought of especially as an organized community[4]

Civilization- the condition that exists when people have developed effective ways of organizing a society and care about art, science, etc.; a particular well-organized and developed society[5]

Any questions regarding clarification of rules etc must be left in the comment section or you can message me BEFORE accepting the debate

1. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
2. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
3. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
4. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
5. http://www.merriam-webster.com...
jam20636

Pro

The resolution, "homosexuality is completely natural and normal in humans thus should be accepted into society," is actually three separate propositions: two of which are ontological and one of which is normative.

Indeed, homosexuality is completely natural in humans. We find that in the animal kingdom homosexuality has been observed among several species of animals. Homo sapiens, animals in their own right, have demonstrated the existence of homosexuality. The presence of homosexuality in the homo sapien species, like other species, is prima facie evidence of the "naturalness" of homosexuality. Furthermore, genetics has shown that sexuality has strong biological influences through various genetic information expressed in humans.

Homosexuality is also normal. The instigator failed to provide a definition for normal, which I shall provide from the same source, Merriam-Webster"s Dictionary. Normal is "usual or ordinary, not strange." The normalness of homosexuality is not measured in social definitions of what is acceptable. It is measured by established patterns of behavior. Because homosexuality continues to occur in nature, it is ordinary and usual. It is not a behavior that infrequently occurs or defies the organization of erotic relations between humans or animals. The fact that it happens, and happens regularly, makes it normal.

Finally, homosexuality should be accepted into society for several reasons. First, sexual activities, which are natural, are meant to regulate population growth and mitigate the exhaustion of natural resources. Sexual activities, which are normal, ensures predictability on a large-scale basis. Secondly, sexual practices that seek pleasure are acceptable forms of sexual conduct, because they too are found in nature. Same-gender sexual activity then would be an acceptable form of sexual conduct. Lastly, accepting sexual conduct into society places various social constructs onto such conduct. Underlying sexual conduct informs social organization such as relationships, and same-sex couples seek the same meaningful relationships as heterosexuals, whose underlying sexual conduct has been validated.
Debate Round No. 1
kingcripple

Con

Thanks to my opponent. I thought I was gonna have to deal with a forfeiture for a second. Which is understandable, I understand things come up. However I am glad to get to debate this.

If it is all the same to my opponent, my opening statements will come in the form of rebuttals to your opening statements

Homosexuality is natural in humans

Another definition of nature according to a quick google search is "the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations." I realize this looks like a slightly different definition than the one I provided, it is the same exact thing, just different wording. I would've used this exact wording if i could've provided a link for it. Keep in mind I am NOT trying to change my definition of nature. It is saying the same exact thing. But let's consider this definition for a second. "As opposed to humans or human creations" This means that if it happens in nature, it doesn't exactly fit the bill for being natural in humans. Homosexuality is one of this things. An example I would like to use is a meme I saw a few years back. It said "homosexuality occurs in 1500 species, while homophobia occurs in only one. Now which is natural?" If we look at ONLY the first part of this meme and disregard the part about homophobia, we see a number actually put on this statistic of how many species engage in homosexual activity. This brings up a few questions:

1. How many of those 1500 species eat their own young?
2. How many of those 1500 species eat their own escarpment?
3. How often do humans eat their own young and escarpment?

In answering these questions we realize the difference in nature and society/civilization.

My opponent could bring up similarities between apes and humans trying to push the claim that homosexuality occurs naturally in humans. But there are vast differences in apes and humans. Darwin even noted this in The Decent of Man:

We must also admit that there is a much wider interval in mental power between one of the lowest fishes, as a lamprey or lancelet, and one of the higher apes, than between an ape and man; yet this immense interval is filled up by numberless gradations. [1]

The whole source article talks about the differences in apes and humans.

Apes have homosexual tendencies, but they do not have the cognitive ability to discern that homosexual activity is abnormal. Humans do. Most of us anyway.

I concede that I failed to provide a definition for normal, so I fully accept my opponent's definition. However, my opponent fails to come to terms with the resolution, Homosexuality is normal and natural in humans therefore should be accepted into society. As I stated before, there are PLENTY of behaviors we see in nature that we do not see in humans. Humans are separate from nature. The examples I gave were:

1. You find species in nature that eat their own young
2. You find species in nature that eat their own escarpment.

And I will reiterate the question I posed: How often do we find that type of behavior in humans? I will give my opponent a chance to give his answer, but I will provide my answer. Not very often. Not very often at all. With the exception of a very small group that enjoy eating scat, you won't find that in a Civilized Society (definition given for both Cilivization and Society in opening round). And you won't find one eating their own young in a civilized society.

A mere knowledge of what sexual activity is will tell you that it is meant to increase population growth, as well as enjoyment. to regulate something means to control or maintain. so regulating population growth would mean to control or maintain population growth. To maintain means to cause or enable. So Homosexual activity, WOULD control population growth. But it would NOT MAINTAIN population growth. Maintaining is canceled out by control. Sounds counter productive, doesn't it?

I have no doubt that homosexuals ENJOY their sexual activity, I don't personally know how, but I will play devil's advocate and say that they do enjoy it. So in that factor, I suppose my opponent is correct. But this begs the question: where is the maintaining of human population? You cannot say that the singular purpose of sex is for enjoyment. It just makes no sense.

"Underlying sexual conduct informs social organization such as relationships, and same-sex couples seek the same meaningful relationships as heterosexuals, whose underlying sexual conduct has been validated." My opponent sounds so sure of that. So how would my opponent defend someone who has a purely sexual relationship with someone (gay or straight) where there is no otherwise meaningful relationship present?
jam20636

Pro

Rebuttal to My Opponent’s Argument

“If it is all the same to my opponent, my opening statements will come in the form of rebuttals to your opening statements.”

My opponent’s position is to attack my position without offering his own position. There is hardly a debate here then—and I cannot offer my own rebuttals.

Rebuttals Made to My Argument

I. My Opponent Changed the Definition of Nature After Offering It in the First Place.

Original Defintion:

“Nature- the physical world and everything in it (such as plants, animals, mountains, oceans, stars, etc.) that is not made by people”

Altered Definition:
"[T]he phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations."

My opponent charges that the definitions herein are the same with different wording. If the definitions were the same, then my opponent would not have needed to offer a different definition. His argument that favoring style over substance simply does not work.

The altered definition provided of Nature is different. The original definition as implied in my previous argument only excludes those things, which are made by people. The altered definition now includes humans themselves as being excluded from the definition of nature. Such a broadening definition is consistent with my opponent’s rebuttal (I would say position—but none has been offered as of yet.)

The broadened scope of the altered definition is now convenient to my opponent: “This means that if it happens in nature, it doesn't exactly fit the bill for being natural in humans.”

II. My Opponent Argues that Even in Some Humans Homosexuality is Normal—Albeit Abnormal.

My opponent argues that because humans have superior cognition to the rest of the animal kingdom, they are able to recognize that homosexuality is abnormal and unnatural. My opponent provides no evidence of such a claim, and what little evidence my opponent does provide might actually contradict his proposition.

First, my opponent argues that there are gradations of cognitive ability supported by Darwin and finishes with his own assertion:

“’We must also admit that there is a much wider interval in mental power between one of the lowest fishes, as a lamprey or lancelet, and one of the higher apes, than between an ape and man; yet this immense interval is filled up by numberless gradations.’ . . . Apes have homosexual tendencies, but they do not have the cognitive ability to discern that homosexual activity is abnormal. Humans do. Most of us anyway.”

My opponent’s argument creates an absurd result. First, he concedes that homosexuality is natural, but argues that it is not normal by his description of apes having inferior cognitive abilities. By extension of his argument, which he explicity accepts, he would also accept the proposition that homosexuality is natural in only those humans—albeit abnormal—who have lower cognitive abilities. This is an absurd conclusion, and one that is without support.

III. My Opponent’s Argument That We Do Not See Some Animal Behaviors in Humans Strengthens My Position, it Doesn’t Dismantle It.

I agree with my opponent that we do not find in humans such behaviors as eating their own young or cannibalizing each other. These are behaviors that are not distinctive of the entire animal kingdom; they are distinctive of a selective population of animals.

The general principle that my opponent is eliciting is that we can look back into the history of the civilized human world and discern that certain behaviors representative of animals did not (and do not) occur in humans. For example, humans have never cannibalized their young, which is true. Therefore, it is unnatural and abnormal to cannibalize your children.

By that same principle, we should also be able to establish the similarities. Homosexuality is one of them. Such behaviors were apparent in every ancient civilization without reprobation.[1] Israel was the only ancient civilization that explicitly proscribed homosexuality, and yet it actively tolerate male prostitutes.[2] Today, homosexuality is still a pervasive part of human erotic relations—and as referenced in the definition, I do not only mean homosexuals, but people who have engaged in same-sex activity.

Such a principle would also mean that homosexuality is normal in relationship to Part II of this argument.

IV. My Opponent Sets up a Straw Man To My Argument that Homosexuality is a Natural Form of Population Control

First, my opponent delves deep into definitions again and tries to assert some contradiction that does not exist. By his argument, we could never use the word “regulate” ever, because it is internally contradictory. This is a reductio ab absurdum argument.

For the clarity of my opponent, the regulation of population growth would mean that homosexuality helps control population growth. We live in a time of unprecedented population growth. [3] Such growth has put a strain on natural resources, and it has been amplified by the fact that people live longer and are healthier than they have ever been. If we continue to grow at an unprecedented rate that we have, we will experience food shortages, increased exposure to communicated disease, and increased use of fossil fuels and energy. Homosexuality is a natural mitigating factor in our human population growth. It is not the sole mitigating factor, but it’s a contributing factor.

V. My Opponent Makes False Assumptions Based on His Earlier Straw Man Argument.

My opponent asserts:

“I have no doubt that homosexuals ENJOY their sexual activity. . . But this begs the question: where is the maintaining of human population? You cannot say that the singular purpose of sex is for enjoyment. It just makes no sense.”

The premise of my opponent’s assertion that homosexual cannot maintain population growth is based on his previous reductio ab absurdum argument on the meaning of “regulate.” To further respond to his assertion, I would not have maintained that the singular purpose for sex generally is for enjoyment, nor would I maintain that procreation is the only purpose of sex.

My opponent also suggests that my assertion that “underlying sexual conduct informs social organization such as . . . same-sex couples [who] seek the same meaningful relationships as heterosexuals” is underinclusive. However, my assertion does not mean that sexual conduct and relationships must be attached. Rather, sexual conduct is the baseline to relationships; meaningful relationships do not subtract from sexual conduct, they only add to it. In further response, someone who has a purely sexual relationship with another without a meaningful relationship does not mean that homosexuality should be tossed. If this were the case, then we have tossed out heterosexual conduct as well—and lived celibately. My argument is not an absolute, but it is evident that such underlying sexual conduct has been fruitful in “informing” meaningful social relationships.



[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...

[2] http://rabbimichaelsamuel.com...

[3] http://news.wustl.edu...

Debate Round No. 2
kingcripple

Con

I don't know how I changed the definition of nature. a different wording DOES NOT mean a different definition. It still says the same thing. I have never debated my opponent on any topic aside from this particular debate, so I am unaware if my opponent uses any sneaky underhanded tactics that some of the people I have debated in the past use, but it would seem this is the case. The reason I chose the particular wording from Merriam-webster.com, was simply to provide a source. I could have very well used the other wording, however I believe a source should be cited. My opponent does not do a good job of defending the claim that I CHANGED the definition.

I NEVER said that homosexuality is normal in SOME humans albeit abnormal still in all humans. When you look at the DNA make up of apes (chimps and bonobos most notably), it is very similar to human DNA[1]. So one could assume that because chimps and bonobos engage in homosexual activities regularly[2], that it must be normal for humans since they are so closely related, right? Wrong. As I stated, Humans (most), unlike animals, have the cognitive ability to discern normal from abnormal. Just because there is a minority that cannot discern normal from abnormal, does not make this statement any less true.

My opponent seems to want to confuse my argument. "eating their own young or cannibalizing each other" is the same thing. Why did my opponent repeat himself. Cannibalization of young, weak, and/or elderly is a common trait in many species[3]. More than 1500 species, infact. So for my opponent to claim that it is only in a SELECT population of animals, is a stretch.

The same with coprophagia (eating of feces, which I also mentioned. my opponent failed to refute this). This happens in the animal kingdom.[4] It is normal in the animal kingdom. Does that make it normal in humans? Well, 2 girls 1 cup not withstanding, of course not! Like wise cannibalization of young happens in the animal kingdom, but does not happen commonly in humans. By this process we can determine that just because homosexuality happening normally in the animal kingdom, that it does not happen in humans. In humans, it is abnormal.

I had defined regulate (correctly) as "to control or maintain". An argument could be made equally for the maintain part as the control part. All that aside, this debate is not about population control, therefore, my opponent's argument is invalid. Anything my opponent said after this point is invalid due to this

1. http://news.sciencemag.org...
2. http://en.wikipedia.org...
3. http://en.wikipedia.org...(zoology)
4. http://en.wikipedia.org...
jam20636

Pro

My Argument


I. Homosexuality Should be Accepted into Society

A. Homosexuality is a Means to Regulate Population Growth and Mitigate the Exhaustion of Natural Resources

As I have demonstrated before, homosexuality is a means to regulate population growth and mitigate the exhaustion of natural resources. Homosexuality is a sexual expression that limits the procreative extravagance of humans. Homosexuality is especially effective, because the offspring of heterosexual couples typically form lifelong proclivities for homosexual activity.

There are other methods to manage population growth such as contraception and sterilization; however, most heterosexuals who use such methods do it to delay their childbearing years. They often do not use such technologies to limit completely the number of children to have.

Additionally, it is irrelevant if homosexuality is natural in this context, because we as humans can make a policy choice to encourage homosexual relations for population control. Reliably, the GLBT population has managed to represent 10-20% of the population over a period of decades. The lack of fluctuation in this population also demonstrates a consistent and reliable means for effective population planning.


B. Homosexuality is Meaningful Sexual Conduct that Informs Underlying Social Relationships

In human history, homosexual conduct has helped to inform constructive social relationships. Homosexuals, especially those who have engaged in long-term relationships, have developed meaningful lives in their communities without consequence. Even if homosexuality were an artificial construct, it does not follow that it should not be accepted in society. We have clearly accepted as a society many things which are neither natural or normal.

The fact that gays and lesbians are productive, hardworking individuals who contribute to the social order should make a difference. Gays and lesbians are identified as a favorable sector of the United States economy, and have been known as DINKS, “Double Income No Kids,” to refer to their purchasing power. There is no evidence that engaging in homosexuality activity contributes to crime or self-destructive behavior.


C. Homosexuality is a Biological Construct Found in Nature

Homosexuality is natural, at least with regard to genetics. A recent study appearing in the Quarterly Review of Biology, researches have found that genetic epi-marks help solve the evolutionary riddle of homosexuality. Obviously, homosexuality cannot be fully genetic, because the gene would eventually disappear since homosexuals do not have children. Instead, researchers have founds that epi-marks, which normally protect parents from natural variation in sex horomone levels during fetal development are not erased from generation to generation. As a result, they cause homosexuality in opposite-sex offspring.

The fact that there is strong biological processes for sexual conduct and attraction demonstrates the strong relationship to nature that sexuality contributes. This kind of process may also explain why homosexuality appears in animals as well. If this is the case, then we know that we share similar genetic processes with such animals. This genetic information may provide a prima facie evidence for the naturalness of homosexuality.

Rebuttal to My Opponent


I. My Opponent Has Still Not Articulated a Position or Argument

My opponent still has not articulated a position that he has adopted. The content of my opponent’s comments have been to discredit my position. He has dropped his position altogether.


II. My Opponent uses an Ad Hominem Fallacy to Attack Me Personally, instead of My Position

My opponent argued:

I have never debated my opponent on any topic aside from this particular debate, so I am unaware if my opponent uses any sneaky underhanded tactics that some of the people I have debated in the past use, but it would seem this is the case.”

Whatever tactics my opponent thinks I am using can’t be underhanded—everything is in black and white on this website.


III. My Opponent’s Argument Fails to Address How We Deny Acceptance of Homosexuality in Society

My opponent has not addressed how homosexuality should not be accepted in society. Acceptance is an undefined and vague term. My side of the argument does not require society to necessarily do something about homosexuality. However, if society is not going to accept homosexuality, then society must do something to prohibit it. How would my opponent argue that homosexuality should not be accepted.


IV. Despite My Opponent’s Lack of Position, His Reasoning Suggests that Technology and Medicine Should Not be Accepted in Society

I am going to assume my opponent would argue that homosexuality should not be accepted in society, because it is not normal and natural. By such reasoning, my opponent would also reject other things which are artificial and abnormal. For example, my opponent’s supposition would lead to the eradication of pharmaceutical drugs for rare diseases or military technologies. These are properties of things which are not natural and are abnormal. Nature did not create these things, nor are they found with any great frequency.


V. My Opponent Has Attempted to Discredit My Argument Based on the Counterexample of Cannibalizing Animals, This Does Not Have Much Teeth (PUN Intended)

My opponent argues that I am minimalizing the number of species who cannibalize their young. He argues that 1,500 species is not a select population, but a large number of animals, which represents that stark divide between humans and animals.

However, there are 8.7 million species of animals. The number of species that my opponent argues is not a select population represents .00017% of all animals on earth. If my opponent argues that this is a significant number, then I can only imagine how he would use the words like “majority” and “most” to mean.


VI.
My Opponent Fallaciously Discredits My Arguments and Violates the Laws of Logic

My opponent argued:

“An argument could be made equally for the maintain part as the control part. All that aside, this debate is not about population control, therefore, my opponent's argument is invalid. Anything my opponent said after this point is invalid due to this.”

First, my opponent continues to stir in his reduction ab absurdum argument that tries to reduce the definition of “regulate” in response to my argument that homosexuality helps regulate population growth. My opponent has taken a definition that he prefers, attempted to show a contradiction with the definition itself, and then suggested that my argument was therefore illogical because of the definition of “regulate.” I could have used a different word to assert the same argument, which would have completely sidestepped my opponent’s argument.

Secondly, my opponent suggests that my argument about population control is irrelevant. However, population growth was a sub-premise to my argument that Homosexuality Should be Accepted in Society Because it is Natural and Normal.

Debate Round No. 3
kingcripple

Con

kingcripple forfeited this round.
jam20636

Pro

Did you still want to continue the debate?
Debate Round No. 4
kingcripple

Con

I apologize for forfeiting round 4. I got busy. Nevertheless, my opponent took the debate knowing the stipulations of bearing burden of proof. The first person he should be concerned with convincing, is me. The audience runs a close second.

I ended up with BOP though taking the con side and you simply cannot prove a negative. That is what this boils down to. My opponent simply could not prove his side, so he laid the burden on me. And seeing as he could not effectively counter any arguments I made, I succeeded.

Thanks to my opponent for taking this debate
jam20636

Pro

Did My Opponent Just Say He Has No Argument?

My opponent asserts that the burden of proof was placed on him, and that you simply cannot prove a negative. If you cannot prove a negative, then my argument would agree that he can't prove his argument. And if he can't prove his argument, then he doesn't really have an argument.

This is the type of fallacious thining that has guided the discussion.

Concluding Comments

My opponent asserted that homosexuality is not natural, not normal, and therefore should not be accepted in society. My opponent tried to unsuccessfully follow a natural law reasoning that did not appear to follow well. He tried to assert that because cannibalistic animals exist in nature, then we can negate homosexuality as a valid practice. His underlying analysis appears to come from a natural law theory, but it is inconsistent. He says that we can discern what not to do from nature, but that we can't discern what we ought to do from natural observation. This is a troubling position.

Nonetheless, I asserted that we can discern what we ought to do from nature, and that what corroborates the "ought" is history and experience. For example, homosexuality is expressed in animals, as it is in humans. History and experience has shown that homosexuality has been practiced throughout humanity, while cannibalizing our young has not.

If my opponent really wanted to take me to task, he could have argued then that incest and polygamy should also be accepted in society. However, he failed to see such a point, rather focusing on cannibalization. But, I am not here to make up his arguments for him.

Additionally, I have clearly risen to the burden of proof in my opening statements and in Round 3 where I have advanced my argument to say that homosexuality has important natural uses (i.e. population control) and that it has social validity, because it also informs important social relationships.

My opponent also failed to answer my question about society and how a society rejects society. He essentially dropped that argument--thereby dropping his entire syllogism because he could not answer the essential conclusion.
Debate Round No. 5
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
I am way to lazy to do 4 or 5 lol.
Posted by kingcripple 3 years ago
kingcripple
I suppose it is...
Posted by dvande28 3 years ago
dvande28
Is this not a roundabout way of debating on whether homosexuality is a choice? If homosexuality is a choice, it is not natural. If homosexuality is not a choice, it is natural.
Posted by kingcripple 3 years ago
kingcripple
would you accept 4?
Posted by Mikal 3 years ago
Mikal
If you go to 3 I will take this
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Geogeer 3 years ago
Geogeer
kingcripplejam20636Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: While there were numerous unsubstantiated arguments on both sides, Con basically gave up. Points pro.