The Instigator
libertarian
Pro (for)
Losing
31 Points
The Contender
bthr004
Con (against)
Winning
40 Points

Homosexuality is natural.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/29/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 2,950 times Debate No: 4266
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (8)
Votes (21)

 

libertarian

Pro

+++ 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. 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.]

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

[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.]

Every scientific source will explain to you that homosexuality is natural and at least partially biological.
bthr004

Con

First off I would simply like to state, I, in no way approve of or promote, discrimination against homosexuality, or infractions of the rights for a homosexual to be a homosexual.

My stance is only that homosexuality in terms, of devoted, or strict prefrence of sexual behavior with species of the same gender, is in fact un-natural. As it goes against nature, and or the natural order of things. The simple fact that sexual acts between species of the same gender can not concieve or reproduce offspring make it un-natural or even necessary by law of nature.

Nature or natural occurences happen out of necessity. for example:
Natural wild fires have been necessary to control or eliminate the unwanted, and promote new, fresh life. Homosexuality is un-necessary because it does not contribute to the creation of life or promotion healthy life,.. which is the reason nature did not intend for strict homosexualty to exist.

un-natural, or against nature, and/or the natural order.
Debate Round No. 1
libertarian

Pro

I. "The simple fact that sexual acts between species of the same gender can not concieve or reproduce offspring make it un-natural or even necessary by law of nature."

Homosexuality is different from heterosexuality. Reproduction is an aspect of heterosexul sex. But the fact that they are different does not make it unnatural. And you can't prove otherwise. Perhaps, it was the creator's intention for gays to adopt.

II. Nature or natural occurences happen out of necessity.

All things that are natural do not occur out of necessity. Look at disease, small pebbbles, conservatives.

III. Homosexuality is un-necessary because it does not contribute to the creation of life or promotion healthy life

Perhaps, God wants gays to adopt due to the fact that so many orphans exist. The fact that homosexuals do not have children, 'naturally', does not prove that homosexuality is unnatural.

IV. Homosexuality takes place in animal species and isolated tribes.

[http://www. livescience. com/ bestimg/index. php?url=&cat=gayanimals]
[http://news. nationalgeographic. com/ news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal. html]

V. If homosexuality was a choice why would people choose it?

VI. These SCIENTIFIC sources say that homosexuality is natural. I worked hard to get only scientific sources. If you have some opposing, factual source [which you wont], they should be unbiased. That means no NARTH, Exodus, or Focus on the Family, etc.

[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.]

Thank you. Vote PRO!
bthr004

Con

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

Artificial as defined by www.merriam-webster.com concludes:

Based on differential morphological characters not necessarily indicative of natural relationships.

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.

According to www.merriam-webster.com the definition is as follows:
na�ture: as it is defined in the English, french, latin. The word derived of indo-euro roots.

nature:
`A primitive state of existence, untouched and uninfluenced by civilization or artificiality:

`Theology Humankind's natural state as distinguished from the state of grace.

`The processes and functions of the body.(Anas, for excretion of waste, mouth, for intake of nutrients, not sex, or reproduction.)

`the physical constitution or drives of an organism; especially : an excretory organ or function —used in phrases like the call of nature. (manipulating the organs into something not intended.)

Being as sexual prefrence is based simply on sex, or reproduction, which is the very basic institute of life, for not only humans, but plants as well, then wouldn't homosexuality, the only prefrence to sexual activity be of the un-natural state, or natural order?

Simply because animals have the same homosexual tendencies as humans doesn't make it natural as well. Animals and humans are equally of nature, 2 male squirrels having sex is just as unnatural as 2 female humans having sex.

I believe by very definition of the word Nature, the root word of natural, clearly proves that homosexuality in every sense is in fact UN-natural.
Debate Round No. 2
libertarian

Pro

I. Animal homosexuality proves that it is not created by humans as a choice. It is a biological fact.

II. I agree with your definition of homosexuality and do not understand why you would post it. Homosexuality was not influenced by civilization. To be blunt: this is just a dumb assumption. Every civilization has homosexuals including isolated tribes, animal groups, and every civilization in the world. Therefore, it is obvious that homosexuality is not created by societal influences. That is just a dumb assumption. If anything civilization discourages homosexuality, not influence the creation of it.

III. Sexuality is not based on reproduction or else old people should not be able to have sex or it is unnatural. Infertile sex would be unnatural. And every time someone has sex and does not get pregnant, that would be unnatural. Homosexuality is not unnatural.

IV. Animals would have no influences from civilization. If anything civilization discourages homosexuality, not influence the creation of it.

V.My opponent has not proved homosexuality to be unnatural. I have proved that homosexuality is naural because it shows up in animals and other civilizations. I also gave all these sources:

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

[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.]

Homosexuality has been proven to be natural.
bthr004

Con

My opponent has not at all supplied factual evidence that homosexuality is biological or of genetics.

If homosexuality IS genetic, and the offspring of a carrier to the DNA marker carrying the gay gene is born gay, or homozygous gay, (no pun intended,) then the mother and the father would have to be at least heterozygous gay gene carriers. Homo meaning like, and hetero meaning passive.

For instance, if gay is genetic, like hair color or something, than every gay person would have to have a few gay ancestors that were homozygous gay.

Surely you dont believe that you can ONLY be gay if your ancestrial lines were also gay??

Also wouldnt homosexuality been eliminated or "bred" out for the lack of reproductive homozygous gay gene carriers? One could not take the position that Homosexuals commonly reproduce in heterosexual manners in order to "pass" the gay gene on, for that theory would be in direct contradiction with the very defintion of homosexuality.

The factual evidence that proves homosexuality is in fact UN-natural is the very definition that defines NATURE.

My opponent seems to take the platiform position that the basic fact that homosexuality occures makes it natural. We are not in disagreement to the fact that homosexuality occures, but the cause for these occurences.

Again, the occurences of homosexuality in other societies and species does not disprove that it is UN-natural. As I said before, two squirrels of the same gender having sex is just as un-natural as two humans having sex. The behavior patterns of animals or "incubated" societies of humans do not define nature.

By the way, if these societies were truly secluded, then how do you know so much about their sexual behavior?

As the defintion of sex according to Merriam-Webster is:
>The sum of the structural, functional, and behavioral characteristics of organisms that are involved in reproduction marked by the union of gametes and that distinguish males and females.
< This proves your assumption that sex is not based on reproduction is false.

If one could be considered homosexual, yet not be "intimate," with the same gender, than my beer drinking buddies could argueably be gay. For it does require intimacy to be considered sexual in any sense, homo or hetero.

Sexual behavior IS social, in every species! Social as the word is DEFINED means:
`marked by or passed in pleasant companionship with one's friends or associates;
`of, relating to;
`the interaction of the individual and the group, or interaction of individuals;
www.merriam-webster.com

By the above defintion, sex IS social, in fact it requires it, or it would just be considered masterbation. As they say,"it takes two to tango!" (not necessarily just two.)

In closing, By the very DEFINITIONS of the word natural, in fact contradict the definitions of homosexuality.

The BASIC FACT that homosexuality does not have "potential," or "necessity," proves that homosexualty is NOT of nature, and the "occurences" of homosexual behavior is the act of two of the same gender and species bieng sexual, is IN FACT, SEX out of its PRIMITIVE state, there fore, UN-NATURAL.

Thank you,.. vote for con
Debate Round No. 3
8 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Posted by bthr004 8 years ago
bthr004
I certainly wasn't celebrating victory,.. I am an admitted sore loser.
If this debate was submitted in this form and graded by my former college coach, he would have filled the posts by pro with red marks of discount.
He clearly took stock in the matter behind his platform, exposing his stance in such a way allowed me to word and choose the most appropriate way to prove my platform is the factual one.
For instance he clearly wanted to use nature in the sense that the occurences of, or preference of ones disires as the definition of nature.
I chose the conservative and "outside" approach not taking personal stake in the issue, just simply using specific definitions of the words nature, and it defining characters, putting those characters into a context that clearly pushes my points.
I do however like my opponents icon,.. pizza is popular, and tastey.
Also didnt my opponent just list a bunch of sources off in the first round instead of actually making a case of their own. By basic rules of debate,.. he must lose.grrr!
Posted by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
Being the victor on this site doesn't say much.

People vote based on:
- the quality of your argument (people who think debating skills matter (most people))
- which side they are convince holds the truth (like myself)
- who has the better-looking icon (unfortunately, some people do)
- and a large variety of other biased reasons
One would be naïve to celebrate a victory here.
Posted by bthr004 8 years ago
bthr004
If I am right, or the "victor," than my case or stance on the issue must have proven true,.. correct? That is kind of the point of a debate is it not? To prove your theory is true and the opponents false.
So how could have I been right, but false.hmmm...
Posted by Derek.Gunn 8 years ago
Derek.Gunn
Some of us are focussing on what is true, rather than who is right.
Posted by bthr004 8 years ago
bthr004
I was under the impression that these debates were judged on the facts presented and quality in which they were presented,.. not what your personal feelings on the topic were,.. I wouldn't have chosen to debate such a shaky subject but I felt that I could present a strong case. I think I accomplished that.
I guess I will stop debating on subject with substance,.. to many touchy feely voters,..
On to which is funnier,.. Everybody Loves Raymond VS. Brothers and Sisters
Posted by DrAlexander 8 years ago
DrAlexander
Spiral, the debate focused on the natural aspect of homosexuality, just because it may be human nature doesn't make it natural. Human nature has been, and will always be, influenced by social factors. Whenever society has added influence upon the action, that action is no longer considered natural.

Though this isn't necessarily my personal opinion, I voted CON.
Posted by Spiral 9 years ago
Spiral
If it is one's nature, then it is human nature.
Simple.
Posted by Derek.Gunn 9 years ago
Derek.Gunn
There are many examples of homosexual behaviour in the animal kingdom.
It is a natural variant.
QED it is natural.
21 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by solo 8 years ago
solo
libertarianbthr004Tied
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 bthr004 8 years ago
bthr004
libertarianbthr004Tied
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 Danielle 8 years ago
Danielle
libertarianbthr004Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Wierdkp326 8 years ago
Wierdkp326
libertarianbthr004Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by ally93 8 years ago
ally93
libertarianbthr004Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Killer542 8 years ago
Killer542
libertarianbthr004Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by BeatTheDevil89 8 years ago
BeatTheDevil89
libertarianbthr004Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by christiandebater 8 years ago
christiandebater
libertarianbthr004Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by UberCryxic 8 years ago
UberCryxic
libertarianbthr004Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Mastershake 8 years ago
Mastershake
libertarianbthr004Tied
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