The Instigator
Con (against)
12 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/9/2013 Category: Society
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,137 times Debate No: 32275
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (3)




*Note: This is my first debate in this site, so if there is something off, make sure to inform me.

Homosexuality is one of the most controversial issues today, and in this debate, I wish to further explore whether homosexuality is natural or originates from other elements. It is quiet clear that the topic title is the strongest foundation of LGBT rights, it give it the right to exist within the Civil Rights Movement. But this requires discrimination or a "Victim Status" which is achieved in case the topic title is a fact.

I, for one, don't believe the topic title is true. Therefore, the other side of the debate must support it.

Opening statement:
The LGBT rights movement efficiently rode the stream of the Civil Rights movements since the 70s, and changed the concept of homosexuality. This is evident by the percentage of homosexuals who believed that they were "Born this way".
When Alfred Kinsey surveyed 1700 homosexual, about 9% claimed they were born homosexual. (1) And in 1970 A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg surveyed 979 gays and the survey produced a similar percentage. (2)
However, when the Paul Cameron Group made a survey of 147 random samples in 1983, 35% of them believed they were born that way. (3)
I'd bet the percentage is higher today.

This marks a triumph of the LGBT rights movement, But...
Does that makes the claims true?
It is quiet obvious that the claim provided political stepping stone, so unless good proofs are provided to establish a theory, then it is one of those political lies that attempt to disguise semi-theories as facts, which usually come with ridiculing or criticizing the opposition for even challenging this "fact".
In short, a propaganda.

The existence of a "Homosexual Agenda" is true as I will show in a minute, but it is important to notice that it is every sexual orientation's goal to normalize they behavior and to remove their stigma.
Just look at any *insert sexual orientation* right group, they'll say "We can't help it, I was born this way!"

One may argue that the APA (American Psychiatric Association) had removed homosexuality from the mental disorder list. (Which was achieved after storming conferences and lobbying)
However, issues arise when you examine their policy (4), their view on all form of paraphila, which would include pedophilia, necrophilia and urolagnia is that they are not considered mental disorders unless they cause distress of interpersonal problems.
So basically, if the guy (say pedophilia) sleeps without batting an eye and have no regrets about his actions, then he is mentally healthy and a normal person, not an actual paraphilia.

Such claims are not only morally false, they have no scientific basis, so a seemingly flawed view solely based on feelings can be dismissed.
And I wouldn't take people who aren't sure what they are saying seriously. (5)

As for the Homosexual Agenda existence here are some quotes:

"Ten percent is not enough! Recruit! Recruit! Recruit!"
-Lesbian avengers moto (6)

1-Talk about gays and gayness as loudly and as often as possible
2-Portray gays as victims, not as aggressive challengers
3-Give homosexual protectors a just cause
4-Make gays look good
5-Make the victimizers look bad
6-Get funds from corporate America

"Lets face it we want to indoctrinate children.", "let"s face it"that"s a lie." "We want educators to teach future generations of children to accept queer sexuality. In fact, our very future depends on it," (8)
-Daniel Villarreal

I could include more proofs of Homosexual Agenda, like what Steve Warren's "Warning to the Homophobes," The Advocate, Sept. 1, 1987, p. 29.

And the demands in the Gay Rights Platform created at the National Coalition of Gay Organizations Convention held in Chicago in 1972.

(1):Gebhard P & Johnson AB The Kinsey data Philadelphia: Saunders, 1979.
(2):Belt AP & Weinberg MS Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1978. /& Hammersmith SK Sexual Preference: Statistical Appendix. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981.
(3):Cameron P, Cameron K. & Proctor K Effect of homosexuality upon public health and social order. Psychol Rpts, 1989,61,1167-79.
(5): -
(7): After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the '90s, 1989

But these show that the LGBT movement wasn't peaceful, thus the victim status is nullified.
An other tactic is using the media to focus on the few homosexual hate crimes. all hate crimes must be punished, but in this case, it is exaggerated.

According to the 2011 FBI hate crime report:
1508 total sexual orientation hate crimes, excluding intimidation and simple assault (pushing) we have about 637 violent hate crimes. It is no low number, but when you compare it to the hundreds of thousands of violent hate crimes each year it is an extremely tiny percentage. Last i heard there were about 500,000 rapes every year in the US.
Where is the real epidemic then? It can be insulting when the issue is compared to what black people experienced for example, they are federally protected by law, making the issue an act of propaganda.
And to put it to rest, according to NCAVP which is a pro-homosexual organization:
The reported domestic violence among homosexuals in 2011 is about 3930.

So statistically, 3930>1508 which means homosexuals were 260.6% more likely to receive violence amongst themselves than immature haters.

These should be enough evidence to proof the existence of the homosexual agendas which opens the door for publicizing false information.
I shall explore whether homosexuality is natural or not next.

-R1 will be the opening statement and acceptance of challenge.
-The main arguments shall be presented in R2, although missed information or evidence can be added in R3.
-Refutation should be the main focus of R3 and R4.

Thank you for accepting the challenge in advance, and good luck to us both.


I want to thank DragonFang for creating this interesting debate on the topic of homosexuality. I will be arguing on the affirmative side, supporting the claim that homosexaulity is "natural". However, I think it would be helpful for my opponent to define what he means by "natural" in round 2.Nevertheless, I eagerly await the debate.
Debate Round No. 1


As for the definition of natural. These shall be the definitions to work with.

1. of, existing in, or produced by nature
2. in accordance with human nature
3. as is normal or to be expected; ordinary or logical
4. not acquired and born with


Short history:

The current definition that "homosexuality is unchangeable" was adopted after the Bowers v. Hardwick case where two people were charged with homosexuality, since all types of sodomy were criminalized.
After the court rejected the argument of homosexuality as a fundamental privacy right, they decided to redefine it as a normal and unchangeable condition equal to heterosexuality which is independent of conduct. So if you practice it, no change have occurred to your true sexual orientation.

First of all, lets ask yourself this question: Are homosexuals in the LGBT rights movement victims or challengers?

The conditions for a party to gain the minority victim status are:

    1. have suffered a history of discrimination

    1. are powerless to help themselves

    1. are defined by immutable characteristics.

The first and second conditions can't be incorporated to the LGBT movement. If it did then it is pretty much an insult to the civil rights movement.

Were they forced into servitude?
Were they denied medical treatment at a heterosexual only hospital?
Were they segregated in schools, buses, restaurants, bathrooms, water fountains etc...
Were they bought and sold a property?
Were they hunted, captured decapitated or placed in zoos?

So the first and second condition can not apply to homosexuality.

But the one that matters is the third condition which you can see attempts at applying it today.
There is one issue with the master plan though... They couldn't proved it.

Scientifically this is absurd, we can not have a DNA test or blood test or any kind of medical test to prove someone's permanent homosexual or heterosexual status.
So we must rely completely on someone's claim that his sexual orientation is innate, some may use the argument that no one would choose to be gay since it is social unacceptable, but the argument is false since that never stopped people in the past and there are many homosexuals who believe that it is a choice.

If this was proved, then a race for the cure would have started already. But do the majority of homosexuals want a cure to be found? I am not sure about that.

I would like you to please clarify in future rounds whether the foundation of the topic title is:
1- Political lie
2- Scientific
And provide reason.

I am not asking for a "List of proofs", I am asking about how the claim started in an 1980-1999 environment. I called the first choice "Political lie" since extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to exist. So in an other word: How did they know that people are born that way?



Legally, all acts of sex except rape are done voluntary with the agreement of both parties.
I just fail to understand the magical force that causes people to have homosexual acts against their will. Did they experience an effect similar to Hypnosis for example? Were the people in bug chasing parties forced into sharing AIDS with each other by an unknown factor?
Therefore, the excluding of the choice factor is illogical until it is scientifically proved that they have their hands tied.

homosexuals are only distinguishable through their actions, thus it is behaviour based. Without show sexual orientation-based actions they are indistinguishable.
Lets assume homosexuality is genetic for a minute, if someone had a "rape gene", we would not blame him for having it, but we won't accept that as an excuse for performing rape.

*Note that the genetic theory is currently rejected since it is not possible*

If such *insert action here* gene exists, then it is not going to force someone to perform an action.

“There is little disagreement that male homosexual orientation is not a Mendelian trait. In fact, a priori, one would expect the role of a major gene in male homosexual orientation to be limited because of the strong selective pressures against such a gene. It is unlikely that a major gene underlying such a common trait could persist over time without an extraordinary counterbalancing mechanism.”
Risch, Neil, Elizabeth Squires-Wheeler, and Bronya J.B. Keats (1993), “Male Sexual Orientation and Genetic Evidence,” Science, 262:2063-2064, December 24.

“The search for the biological underpinnings of complex human traits has a sorry history of late. In recent years, researchers and the media have proclaimed the ‘discovery’ of genes linked to alcoholism and mental illness as well as to homosexuality. None of the claims… has been confirmed.”
as quoted in Horgan, John, “Gay Genes, Revisited,” Scientific American, 273[5]:26, November, 1995.

We are human beings, we are not cattle or robots. We have the gift of choice and logical thinking. So believing that hormones is going to cause a bpd is also absurd.

The next factor is desire which obviously abundant. Just because desire excists does not mean it is justified, otherwise adultery, rape, murder etc... Are justified as well since the person wants it.
Should the previous listed intentions be carried out or should the said person conquer them?

I would like you to point in future rounds whether homosexuality is a desire that can be suppressed and eventually regulated. And point whether it is different than say, anger management or the desire to harm someone.

If someone had pedophilia-based thoughts, They are expected to conquer these thoughts even if it is hard for them, and society have the right to stop it and regulate sexual acts.

In a nut shell: Being a member of society, it means you suppress harmful desires or you get punished.

Pedophiles prisoners are saying that they can't help it and are born this way, should we let them go then?
In fact, pedophilia was a part of the early LGBT movement since one of their demands was to remove all the age of consent laws.

Andrei Chikatilo, a Russian serial killer who killed 52-56 women and children said that he only feels sexually aroused after slashing them to death even after he attempted rape, and he couldn't help it since the desire overwhelmed him.

There are unlimited possibilities for sexual orientation, and homosexuality is on the list. But that does not and never did give an official license for sexual conduct.

An other important aspect in the formula is equalizing homosexuals and heterosexuals.
However, when researching homosexual practices, it becomes quite clear that homosexuality is dangerous to the individual and partners, even without all the statistics.

One may say: Homosexuality spreads diseases, Heterosexuality does the same thing.
However two wrongs does not prove one of them right.
Would you be OK to ban all harmful sexual activities then? The answer would probably be no since homosexuality is based upon them.

Heterosexuality is immutable.
*Note: Excluding hermaphrodites*

Males are born with male sexual parts. So they are definitely males.
Females are born with female sexual parts. So theye definitely females.
The productive system that ensures the survival of humankind is between a male and a female, thus heterosexuality is natural. Ultimately, we are one race with two genders, males and females, and for homosexuality to be equal to heterosexuality they must have their own physiology that fits in their sexual activities.

Homosexuality is thus unnatural and an abnormality based on the conduct of same-sex relationship. In the end they are males or females. Biologically, they is no difference between homosexuals and the other paraphilias.

My side of the argument requires not to have new information, it requires to clear the misconceptions and flawed logic.


In the next round, I shall focus on the scientific aspect.
Thank you for reading.


Zlifko forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Unfortunetly, Pro was unable to participate due to study-based reasons.
Although no debate exists and I myself don't have much time, I shall post the argument I promised real quick.

Imagine junkies calling someone who claimed he got clean a liar. Now compare it to "Ex-Gays".

I pointed out that the idea of homosexuality gene is rejected. The reason no geneticist would be happy with the idea that genes dictate behaviour, is because there are no plausible means by which genes could inescapably force homosexuality or other behaviours on a person. Genes create proteins not preferences. A scan of the whole genome has not found any homosexual genes, unlike schizophrenia.

Brain size:
The experiment have never been reproduced, thus it's position as science is questionable.

has not been replicated, and human neuroanatomical studies of this kind have a very poor track record for reproducibility. Indeed, procedures similar to those LeVay used to identify nuclei have previously led researchers astray.
-William Byne

The nineteen people who happened to have a "Homosexual" brain happened to die by AIDS. And AIDS is known to decrees testoserone levels. So what does this indicate? AIDS makes you less male?

Just listen to the man himself:

It"s important to stress what I didn"t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn"t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.
-Simon LeVay

As for the hormones thing, it is quite similar to the genetics case. Hormones don't affect sexual orientation, only sexual drive. In theory, tests and observation should have clear evidence, but it brought questionable results on females and no results on males.

Dr Dean Hamer is the guy who pushed the x chromosome in the born gay theory in the mid 90s.
But his research was reported to be selective thus bias, and other independent universities weren't able to reproduce anything close to what Hamer did.

And if the X chromosome is the factor of the "Gay-Gene". Shouldn't all identical twins be homosexual? They have the same chromosome structure, right?

And then there is the homosexual animals. First let me reply with this

A homosexual penguin flies straight: ... o-straight

I thought there is no such thing as ex-homosexual... Maybe we should wait for the black widows to stop killing and eating their spouse so we can stop man-wife homicide.

Animals may have limited senses and means of expersion compared to us. And one of their ways to prove their dominanice is by "riding" other animals to make them submit, really. In fact, farmers do seperate animals who show such behaviour because this is a sign a fight may happen, especially if the two animals are males. As said before, it can also come from limited senses since there are cases of animals cannibalism because animals mistook the victim with a legitimate prey.
It can also come from a sexual stimulus being stuck to an animal of the same gender, it mostly happens in hot weather.


Zlifko forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


No argument.


Zlifko forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: F.F.
Vote Placed by Ragnar 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: FF conduct. Arguments only posted by one side. Sources only used by one side. con: I suggest starting this argument again for another challenger.
Vote Placed by Pennington 4 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: FF