The Instigator
libertarian
Pro (for)
Losing
52 Points
The Contender
beem0r
Con (against)
Winning
60 Points

Homosexuality is natural and morally correct. Homophobia is morallly incorrect.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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: 5/27/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 9,042 times Debate No: 4232
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (25)
Votes (24)

 

libertarian

Pro

I.I am gay. I was made a certain way and never had a choice. I am really outraged by the many prejudice things I have read on this website. I hope to change somebody's mind on homosexuality with this debate, although, it is unlikely that they will stop being prejudice.

It was important for me to use many sources and ALL ARE SCIENTIFICALLY BASED. I know how easy it is to find a non-scientific biased site, but all of my sources are scientific.

+++ Homosexuality is natural. It is not a choice. Nobody would choose homosexuality if it was a choice. Homosexuality is a natural occurence in
animals and in environments without contact from other societies.

[http:// www. msnbc. msn. com/ id/15750604/]

[http:// www. pureintimacy. org/ gr/ homosexuality/a0000058. cfm]

[http:// www. apa. org/ topics/sorientation. html]

[Alfred C. Kinsey, Wardell B. Pomeroy and Clyde E. Martin, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Company, 1948), p.651.]

[Ruth Tiffany Barnhouse, Homosexuality: a Symbolic Confusion, (New York: The Seabury Press, 1979) p.l57.]

[Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality, American Psychological Association, online at http://helping.apa.org....]

[D'Augelli, A. R., Grossman, A. H., & Starks, M. T., "Childhood Gender Atypicality, Victimization, and PTSD Among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Youth," Journal of Interpersonal Violence]

[Myers, D. G., Excerpt from Psychology, 8th edition. (New York: Worth Publishers, 2007), http://www.davidmyers.org....]

[Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality, American Psychological Association, online at http://helping.apa.org....]

[Myers, D. G., Excerpt from Psychology, 8th edition. (New York: Worth Publishers, 2007), http://www.davidmyers.org....]

[Roselli C.E., Larkin K., Schrunk J.M., Stormshak F., "Sexual partner preference, hypothalamic morphology and aromatase in rams," Physiology and Behavior, 2004, Nov 15;83(2):233-45.]

+++ Homosexuals are capable parents who are loving and are just as capable as heterosexual parents. Therefore, gay parents should be allowed to adopt.

[http:// www. apa. org/ pi/ parent. html]

[American Academy of Pediatrics, "Co-parent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents," Pediatrics 109 (Feb. 2002): 341.]

[Brodzinsky, David, "Adoptions by Gays and Lesbians: A National Survey of Adoption Agency Policies, Practices, and Attitudes," Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, October 29, 2003.]

[Stacey, J. & Biblarz, T. "Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?" American Sociological Review, Vol. 66, No. 2, April 2001.]

[Dingfelder, S. "The kids are all right,", The Monitor on Psychology, A Publication of The American Psychological Association, December, 2005, Vol. 36, No. 11.]

[American Academy of Pediatrics Conference and Exhibition, Washington, D.C., Oct. 8-11, 2005. Ellen C. Perrin, MD, professor of pediatrics, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston. Carol Berkowitz, MD, former president, American Academy of Pediatrics.]

[Excerpt from statement released by the American Academy of Pediatrics, February 2002.]

[American Psychiatric Association, "Adoption and Co-parenting of Children by Same-sex Couples." Approved by the Board of Trustees and by the Assembly, November 2002.]

[American Psychological Association, Guidelines for Psychotherapy with Lesbian, Gay, And Bisexual Clients, www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/guidelines.html.]

[American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Policy Statement, Facts for Families: Children with Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Parents, June 1999, NO. 92, updated August, 2006.]

[http://www.aacap.org... exual_and_transgender_parents.]

[American Anthropological Association, Statement on Marriage and the Family, February 25, 2004.]

[Dr. John Gottman in discussion with the author at the training: A Research-based Approach To Marital Therapy, Dallas, Texas, September 2001.]

+++ Homosexuals are just as good fighters as heterosexuals and should be allowed to join the military. We have a very low amount of troops at the moment. Homosexuals are forced to conceal an aspect of their lives while in the military.

+++ Homosexuality is not a disorder.

The American Psychological Association [apa.org]

American Psychiatric Association

American Counseling Association

National Association of Social Workers

The World Health Organization

["The Wolfenden Report," Time Magazine]

+++ Homosexuals should be allowed to marry. The government supports families when there are opposite sexes. It is discriminatory and incorrect of the government to not allow and support homosexual families.

II. Homophobia involves judging others. In the Christian religion, God does not want humans to judge other humans.

(Matthew 7:1) "Do not judge so that you will not be judged.

Luke 6:37 "Do not judge, and you will not be judged; and do not condemn, and you will not be condemned; pardon, and you will be pardoned.

Luke 6:41 "Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?

Romans 14:10 But you, why do you judge your brother? Or you again, why do you regard your brother with contempt? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.

Romans 14:13 Therefore let us not judge one another anymore, but rather determine this-- not to put an obstacle or a stumbling block in a brother's way.

Isa 66:5 Eze 16:52-56 Lu 6:37 Ro 2:1,2 14:3,4,10-13 1Co 4:3-5 Jas 3:1 4:11,12

I want everyone to understand that it does hurt to see prejudice homophobes distorting the Bible and scientifiv fact to hurt us.
beem0r

Con

My opponent's resolution is threefold. First, he claims that "Homosexuality is natural."

This I have no problem with. The fact that homosexuality exists means it's natural, though I guess it could be argued to be unnatural if genetic engineering is done to make someone gay, though I doubt this is the case.

Next, my opponent claims that "Homosexuality is morally correct."

He does not back this up - I will show in my arguments below that he fails to substantiate this argument.

Lastly, my opponent claims that "Homophobia is morally incorrect."

I will show below why this too is not backed up.

I. Homosexuality
RE: "Homosexuals are good parents"
Does this mean homosexuality is morally correct? I would think not. People who illegally download Microsoft Windows probably make fine parents too, but that certainly has no bearing on whether or not stealing Windows is morally correct or not.

RE: "Homosexuals are competent soldiers"
Once again, this does not affirm the resolution. Same analogy as above works here.

Re: "Homosexuality is not a disorder"
Neither is stealing Microsoft Windows. Once again, this fails to touch on the resolution.

RE: "Homosexuals should be able to marry"
Once again, this has nothing to do with the resolution. Even so, it is very arguable. We do not allow marriages between a human and an animal. We do not allow marriages between a child and an adult. We do not allow marriages between blood relatives. We do not allow marriages between members of the same sex.
These are all criteria for marriage. The same arguments one could use for supporting gay marriages would work for any of these examples.

Thus far, we can conclude that homosexuality is morally neutral. There is nothing morally positive about homosexuality. Even so, there are many arguments for it being morally negative.

1] Many religions explicitly state that Homosexuality is immoral. Christianity, which my opponent seems to accept as a valid source, is one of them.
2] Homosexuality creates unneeded complications with the standard family model.
3] I would like to point out a statement my opponenet made: "Nobody would choose homosexuality if it was a choice."
In that statement, my opponenet has already agreed that homosexuality would be a bad choice if it was a matter of choice.

Also, do not let the fact that it may not be a matter of choice stop you from accepting that homosexuality is not morally correct. Psycho killers are often born that way, it's natural, sometimes it's not a choice they make, but it's still quite immoral.

Also, consider that a morally neutral thing is not 'morally correct.' Eating a biscuit is not morally correct, nor is it morally incorrect.

Next, let's talk about homophobia.
My opponenet attempts to show that homophobia is morally incorrect.

His only argument is that judging anyone is morally incorrect. In my opponenet's dreamworld, law can only exist as an immoral thing [since that necessarily involves judging people]. People can't make decisions about whether or not to trust someone [since that necessarily involves judging people]. It is immoral to prefer one person to another [since that necessarily involves judging people]. Not only is this impossible, but it's down right stupid. Judging people is necessary, and there's nothing inherently wrong with it.

Once again, I hold that Homophobia is morally neutral, since there has been given no criteria whereby it should be attached to morality.
Debate Round No. 1
libertarian

Pro

I. A. Homosexuality is morally correct because it involves love.

B. Homosexuality also makes the other person happy, which is moral.

C. Homosexuality often leads to adoption, which is moral.

II. This is not the first time I've debated you and I've noticed you debate very strictly on the topicality. I'll let all the dropped arguments from topicality go. On to the debate!

III. "Many religions explicitly state that Homosexuality is immoral. Christianity, which my opponent seems to accept as a valid source, is one of them."

No popular religion states that homosexuality is immoral. It is mythed that the Bible states this. It does instruct priests not to engage in homosexual behaviors as well as get tatoos, round haircuts or play football in Leviticus. The book also tells of how Sodom and Gamora was destroyed but in Ephesians it states that they were destroyed due to arrogance, not due to homosexual behaviors. You cannot find one example that determines that homosexuality is immoral. There are only 6 scriptures in the Bible that can be potentially used to attack Christianity. This was not one of God's priorities and certainly was not a sin. And if the judges are voting on the best debater, they will agree that homosexuality is never proven immoral by the Bible.

IV. "Homosexuality creates unneeded complications with the standard family
model."

A. I am given the impossible task of debating a negative. He never backs up this false assumption. Homosexuals are just as good parents as heterosexuals. Denying homosexuals rights like adoption creates unneeded complications with the United States Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment Section 1's Equal Protection Clause.

B. I do not know any of these complications so it is impossible for me to debate them, which is unfair.

V. My opponenet has already agreed that homosexuality would be a bad choice if it was a matter of choice.

This does not relate to the resolution! Homosexuality is still natural and moral.

VI. "Also, do not let the fact that it may not be a matter of choice stop you from accepting that homosexuality is not morally correct. Psycho killers are often born that way, it's natural, sometimes it's not a choice they make, but it's still quite immoral."

Psycho killers are hurting people. Homosexuals are loving each other, which hurts nobody at all. Homosexuals are not equal to psycho killers in morality.

VII. Also, consider that a morally neutral thing is not 'morally correct.' Eating a biscuit is not morally correct, nor is it morally incorrect.

VIII. "In my opponenet's dreamworld, law can only exist as an immoral thing [since that necessarily involves judging people]."

Law is morally incorrect. It involves judging people. If you can use the Bible to attack homosexuality [falsely I might add], I can use the Bible to attack you. Judging and revenge is morally incorrect as many religious books and books on morality state. Law may be helpful, maybe not. But THE RESOLUTION ASKS WHAT IS MORALLY CORRECT, NOT WHAT IS HELPFUL, OR NOT.

IX. "People can't make decisions about whether or not to trust someone [since that necessarily involves judging people]. It is immoral to prefer one person to another [since that necessarily involves judging people]. Not only is this impossible, but it's down right stupid. Judging people is necessary, and there's nothing inherently wrong with it."

THE RESOLUTION IS ABOUT MORALITY! IF YOU CAN DROP MY ARGUMENTS DUE TO RESOLUTION, I'LL DO THE SAME!

X. A. Homophobia often leads to villence, which is immoral.

B. Homophobia is a form of prejudice, which is immoral.

C. Homophobia involves judging others and condemning them, which is immoral.

This is an obvious debate.

XI. This was a very poor debate. My opponent used cheap topic arguments instead of substantially debating.
He forced me to debate negatives.
He used many untrue assumptions and lied to each of you.
I hope he does a better job for the next two rounds.
Sorry for the poor debate.

Please vote PRO for the better debater and position.
beem0r

Con

RE: I
-----
RE: "Homosexuality is morally correct... because it involves love"
So do incest and pedophilia. Involving love does not mean something is moral.

RE: "Homosexuality also makes the other person happy, which is moral."
Little kids taking candy from strangers might make the other person happy too, if you know what I'm talking about. However, "it makes someone happy" is not a positive moral impact. If I want someone killed, and I hire an assassin, the fact that him doing his job makes me happy does not make it moral.

RE: "Homosexuality often leads to adoption, which is moral."
Homosexuality 'often' leads to many things. Homosexuality often leads to the spread of HIV/AIDS, which is immoral. C what I did thar?
Also, not being able to have kids of your own also often leads to adoption. If that makes not being able to have kids moral, then I wholeheartedly hope the world stays immoral forevermore.
-----
These are not valid criteria for claiming something is moral.

Also, let's take a look at an interesting fact.

First, a quote from my opponent for context:
"I am gay. I was made a certain way and never had a choice."

I agree with his statement that being gay is not a choice. THAT BEING SAID, it cannot be moral. BEING a lion leads to killing many innocent animals, but that doesn't make being a lion immoral. Why? Because being a lion ISN'T A CHOICE. Morality is all about virtue. Virtue does not exist if a choice is not made.

RE: III
-----
The bible does state this.
Leviticus 18:22 [Young's literal translation]
"And with a male thou dost not lie as one lieth with a woman; abomination it [is]."

This is right before a verse condemning bestiality.

Also, this is repeated:
Leviticus 20:13 [Young's literal translation]
"And a man who lieth with a male as one lieth with a woman; abomination both of them have done; they are certainly put to death; their blood [is] on them."

This is right before a verse condemning getting with your wife's mother, and right after a verse condeming sleeping with your wife's daughter. It's clear that we're talking about real moral issues here.

I have shown that the bible speaks against homosexual acts as immoral.
-----

RE: IV
-----
A. I will back it up then. What does a child say when he is asked about his mother/father, when he does not have one?
Also, men are generaly worse at actually raising kids. A kid with two parents of the same sex will lack the contrast that is so sauccessful in families. The general job of a father is one thing, while a mother's is another. Generally men are more well-suited to their job, while women are more suited to theirs.

There, now you know what I'm talking about.
-----

RE: V
-----
So it's moral to make a bad choice? Where's the virtue in making a regrettable choice? Misfortune in itself is not virtuous.
Even so, it's not a choice, which pretty much makes it morally neutral automatically.
-----

RE: VI
-----
I was simply showing that "I didn't have a choice" doesn't make it moral, since that seemed to be the only thing my opponent was trying to back his claim up with in R1.

Therefore, throw this point away, since it's obvious now that that my opponenet is not using that as a criteria for morality.
-----

RE: VII
-----
I was not rebutted here. MY opponenet has accepted that "a morally neutral thing is not 'morally correct.' Eating a biscuit is not morally correct, nor is it morally incorrect."
-----

RE: VIII
-----
Law is not morally incorrect. The bible is not a source of Morality, since divine command theory is a ridiculous way of deciding what's moral.

Not only that, but many times in the bible, laws are stated. Stone a man if he does this. Kill a man if he does that. Thus, the bible does not think law [and judging people beased on it] is immoral. Therefore, the bible in internally inconsistent on this isue, and therefore it cannot be used as a reliable source when it comes to whether or not it is morally permissible to judge people.
-----

RE: IX
-----
I already showed in RE: VIII that the bible is not a valid reason to say that judging people is immoral, so this point becomes moot.
-----

RE: X
-----
RE: "Homophobia often leads to villence, which is immoral."
I don't know what definition of often you're using, but it's wrong. We'll pretend you said seldom. Even so, the violence is immoral, not the homophobia. Just like sometimes leading to the spread of HIV/AIDS doesn't make homosexuality immoral.

RE: "Homophobia is a form of prejudice, which is immoral."
Homophobia is something people have no control over, therefore it is not immoral. The discrimination that people sometimes do because of their homophobia might be immoral, but the actual homophobia is not.
Also, I fail to see why prejudice is automatically considered immoral. Simply because there's a social stigma attached to the word? I ask my opponent to back up the argument that prejudice is immoral, since it seems to be pulled out of thin air.

RE: "Homophobia involves judging others and condemning them, which is immoral."
Actually, it only involves not liking a trait, it does not involve 'condemning' people. I've shown why juding someone is not an automatically immoral thing. Let's pretend I don't like brown eyes on girls. This isn't immoral. It's simply a preference. I prefer non-brown-eyed girls. I therefore, at least when it comes to a relationship, have an aversion to brown eyes.

Also, since the bible is supposedly a valid source for morality in this debate, let us consider that the bible specifically condemns homosexuality and asks us to condemn them as well. See Leviticus 20:13, where we are asked to KILL them.
-----

RE: XI
-----
QQ more nubsauce.
-----
Debate Round No. 2
libertarian

Pro

I A. Why is homosexuality correct based on love if incest and pedophilia are too?

Homosexuality is love between two human beings. Incest creates biological and social problems. Pedophilia psychologically hurts children. These acts hurt people. Straight love is morally justified and encouraged. There is no reason gay love should not be.

I B. The two examples you mention make a person sad and a person happy. Homosexual love makes everybody happy in the act. It is reciprocal.

I C. I don't understand your point. Gay marriage will lead to more adoptions and more families, which is a good moral thing. It is an act of kindness and generosity to another human being what could be more moral?

II. Morality cannot exist if a choice is not made.

The act of engaging in homosexual love is moral, which is the choice.

III. Leviticus 18:22; 20:13

A. Leviticus is a holiness code written 3,000 years ago. This code includes many prohibitions against round haircuts, wearing garments of mixed fabrics, and even playing with the skin of a pig. (There goes football!)In this case, these laws were written for priests only, and its primary intent was to set the priests of Israel over and against priests of other cultures.

B. Levitcus 20:2 starts off with "'And unto the sons of Israel thou dost say..."

C. This code is not meant for all humans, but rather just for Israeli priests at the time.

IV. What does a child say when he is asked about his mother/father, when he does not have one?

A. He will say the truth. Many kids grow up without both parents. He is lucky to have both. It is not harmful that one of them does not have certain sex organs. That is irrelevant to the child's well-being.

B. Many people grow up with one parent or a feminine father or masculine mother. The fact that a person does not embrace a certain stereotype does not make them ill-equipped to be a parent.

C. NO SCIENTIFIC SOURCE WILL SAY THAT GAY PARENTS CANNOT DO AS GOOD A JOB AS STRAIGHT PARENTS! Here are some SCIENTIFIC sources to back this up:
[http://www. apa. org/ pi/lgbc/policy/parents. html]
[http://www. urban. org/ publications/411437. html]
[http://www. healthyminds. org/ glbissues. cfm]

V. Homosexuality involves homosexual love, which is moral: choice or not.

VI. Agreed. [He dropped his point!]

VII. I said that homosexual love is not morally neutral for adoption, love, and reciprocal happiness. These are all morally correct!

VIII. A. The Bible says that judging others is wrong many times. (James 4:11) "Do not criticize each other, brothers. Whoever makes it his habit to criticize his brother or to judge his brother is judging the law and condemning the law. But if you condemn the law, you are not a doer of the law but its judge."
The law has the right to judge. Not people.

B. Homophobia is morally wrong it leads to people being unhappy and typically verbal and physical violence, which is immoral.

IX. Ugh...Whatever!

X. Violence is immoral. Not homophobia.

A. Judging has proven to be immoral. You cannot engage in homophobia without judging.

B. Prejudice is immoral because it involves judging, which is immoral. It also leads to violence, which makes it potentially immoral.

C. Homophobia is defined as prejudice or antipathy for homosexuality, This is different from not liking a certain type of girl. Homophobia is prejudice, by definition.

D. Leviticus 18; 20

This has been disproven earlier in the debate.

XI. This was hardly a debate. It was based on twisting my words and small differences in definition. I'm calling future potential abuse, which is an argument that states that if you vote against him it will show that it is wrong and bad for debate to debate in this way. Eventually, he should stop debating in this way if he realizes it is not working and is only detremental to the activity of debate.

Thank you. Vote PRO for the better debater. And for the better position.
beem0r

Con

Sorry about the short length here, I just wanted to finish this off quickly before I went to sleep.

As my final round, I will simply be stressing one very important point.

Homosexuality is not a choice. This was first stated by my opponenet, and I agreed.
Something cannot be morally right or wrong if it is not a matter of choice. I made this point, and my opponenet did not disagree. His response was that:

"The act of engaging in homosexual love is moral, which is the choice."

So while homosexuality is not a choice, coimmiting homosexual acts is not a choice. HOWEVER, this debate is about whether or not HOMOSEXUALITY is morally right or not, not about whether commiting HOMOSEXUAL ACTS is morally right or wrong.

Since Homosexuality is not a choice, it itself is not morally correct or incorrect. It is, as I have stated many times before, morally neutral.

Thus, I negate the resolution, since Homosexuality is not morally correct.
Debate Round No. 3
25 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Mark40511 7 years ago
Mark40511
I think it's funny when someone calls it a "lifestyle" like sex, drugs, and rock n roll or something. It's not a lifestyle. To me, that's like saying children are a lifestyle or Asian's are a lifestyle. Homosexuality is just the way you are. How can someone who isn't gay even begin to comprehend whether it's a choice or not? I don't get that! In order to believe it's a choice, wouldn't you have to be gay, otherwise, how do you know?
Posted by DoctrinallyCorrect 9 years ago
DoctrinallyCorrect
It is not a phobia to disagree with a lifestyle. For example, It is not homophobia to disagree with a homosexual lifestyle. If it is, then to disagree with my lifstyle that conflicts with the homosexual lifestyle, which would mean they have phobia against me. Therefore the have a phobia to and have no right to complain about by phobia. I feel that gays are try not just to get tolerance from society, but to force everyone to agree with it.
Posted by libertarian 9 years ago
libertarian
Marvel

You're point is completely scientifically false.

Most pedophiles are not even homosexual.

And your point is based solely on stereotypes, the same thing that caused the Holocaust.

By the way gays were kept in concentration camps for 24 years after Jews. A gay Jew was the lowest person in the camp and was considered lesser and treated worse by guards and prisoners.

So thanks, Marvel, for your untrue, prejudice remarks. Much appreciated.
Posted by JonJon 9 years ago
JonJon
Marvel

Pedophilia is a more a hetero thing than a homo thing. It is not about gender, but power. Most Pederasts consider themselves straight... no matter what lies the loving, moral Xtians on the right spews.

And c'mon. Have you seen the stats about heterosexual sex? Sorry to tell you, but hetersexuals far surpass homosexuals in the aids epidemic. Take a look at Africa.

My point is that promiscuity with no protection is what causes STDs. Both sexualities are guilty. Finger pointing is just, well finger pointing.

Get your facts straight.
Posted by Marvel819 9 years ago
Marvel819
about the pedifile and incest topic. it was said that it causes defects and and other various things.
sexually transmitted diseases are more likely to be contracted by homosexuals simply because of the dangers of that type of sexual activity and the promiscuity of most homosexuals
Posted by bthr004 9 years ago
bthr004
I encourage you to read my debate on this very topic, "homosexuality is natural." I used the definitions of the words to prove my theory.
Posted by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
Was out for the weekend.

Reproduction isn't the only natural end of sex. You may or may not be familiar with the fact that sex also produces pleasure.

And who are you to say what or what not nature "intended"? Nature didn't intend anything, since it doesn't make decisions. Intent requires a mind, something you'll find rather lacking in 'nature.'

Either way, by the first definition of natural you gave: "A primitive state of existence, untouched and uninfluenced by civilization or artificiality" animal homosexuality in many cases cannot be said to be unnatural, since it sometimes exists irrespective of civilization.
Posted by bthr004 9 years ago
bthr004
I am claiming that devout* homosexuality, or "strict" homosexuality is unnatural, never intended to exist.
ALL instances of homosexuality is un-natural, or not how nature intended it.
Animal homosexuality and human homosexuality all apply to the same laws of nature,.. sexual behavior of the same species of the same gender is worthless, unnescesary, and goes AGAINST nature in every realm, plant, animal, and human. Two men can not reproduce, two male plants cannot reproduce, two female animals cannot reproduce, thus, not concieving offspring and continuing life of said species.
Un-natural. Not following the laws of nature, that in fact dictate what is natural.
Posted by beem0r 9 years ago
beem0r
So when an animal is homosexual, you're saying it is because of civilization or artificiality?

Because if not, then homosexuality is natural.

Unless you're only claiming that only some instances of homosexuality are unnatural, whereas others are natural. In that case, we're not really in disagreement.
Posted by bthr004 9 years ago
bthr004
I certainly did not say that at all,..

I said I would choose to blame social influence, before I went with nature, if this is the omission on my part that you are accusing me of.

I never said sexual behavior was "based" on civilization or artificiality at all. I said:

"A primitive state of existence, untouched and uninfluenced by civilization or artificiality" as the definition of nature.

Sexual behavior IS however "influenced" on civilization and yes sometimes artificiality. And by the definition above, homosexuality IS unnatural.

Heterosexuality IS also influenced on the above notes, however, because of its necessity in plants, animals, humans, etc. It can, would, and must exist without influence, or in its primitive state.
24 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by pokemonboy102 7 years ago
pokemonboy102
libertarianbeem0rTied
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:51 
Vote Placed by Mark40511 7 years ago
Mark40511
libertarianbeem0rTied
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 sienkinm 7 years ago
sienkinm
libertarianbeem0rTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Vote Placed by Jamesothy 8 years ago
Jamesothy
libertarianbeem0rTied
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 jesus_lovesu 8 years ago
jesus_lovesu
libertarianbeem0rTied
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 Danielle26 8 years ago
Danielle26
libertarianbeem0rTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Riddick 8 years ago
Riddick
libertarianbeem0rTied
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 Logical-Master 9 years ago
Logical-Master
libertarianbeem0rTied
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 
Vote Placed by Rezzealaux 9 years ago
Rezzealaux
libertarianbeem0rTied
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 DoctrinallyCorrect 9 years ago
DoctrinallyCorrect
libertarianbeem0rTied
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