Homosexuality is natural
Debate Rounds (3)
Con will go first. If con doesn't start in R1, he forfeits all 7 points to me. No semantics. Philosophy debate
Alright so I guess ill be traditional with a case;
Just to start with some Definitions:
Natural: existing in nature and not made or caused by people : coming from nature
Sex: either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and many other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions.
Gender: the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex
Gender identity: refers to “one’s sense of oneself as male, female, or transgender” (American Psychological Association, 2006). When one’s gender identity and biological sex are not congruent, the individual may identify as transsexual or as another transgender category (cf. Gainor, 2000).
Gender expression: refers to the “…way in which a person acts to communicate gender within a given culture; for example, in terms of clothing, communication patterns and interests. A person’s gender expression may or may not be consistent with socially prescribed gender roles, and may or may not reflect his or her gender identity” (American Psychological Association, 2008, p. 28).
Ok to start:
As the negation I place the BOP STRICTLY on the AFF, I will not accept a BOP and my sole purpose is to negate the resolution while my opponent must prove homosexuality is natural.
Contention 1: Homosexuality is a Gender and not a Sex.
Homosexual is not a sex, which is derived from nature; but instead it comes from what you identify as, or gender Identity/ Sexual Identity , which is derived from society, The APA states "Sexual orientation is an enduring emotional, romantic, or sexual attraction that one feels toward men, toward women, or toward both. Although sexual orientation ranges along a continuum, it is generally discussed in terms of... homosexual—attraction to the same sex" So being homosexual is related to one identity that they assign to them selves, some may say it is naturally because animals participate in homosexual acts however the methodology of these studies relates kinship to homosexual activity. Kinship however is not a homosexual act. Thus Homosexual activity is not natural.
NAARTH states "Anyone engaged in the most elementary animal observation is forced to conclude that animal "homosexuality," "filicide" and "cannibalism" are exceptions to normal animal behavior. Consequently, they cannot be called animal instincts. These observable exceptions to normal animal behavior result from factors beyond their instincts. To explain this abnormal behavior, the first observation must be the fact that animal instincts are not bound by the absolute determinism of the physical laws governing the mineral world. In varying degrees, all living beings can adapt to circumstances. They respond to internal or external stimuli.
Second, animal cognition is purely sensorial, limited to sound, odor, touch, taste and image. Thus, animals lack the precision and clarity of human intellectual perception. Therefore, animals frequently confuse one sensation with another or one object with another.
Third, an animal's instincts direct it towards its end and are in accordance with its nature. However, the spontaneous thrust of the instinctive impulse can suffer modifications as it runs its course. Other sensorial images, perceptions or memories can act as new stimuli affecting the animal's behavior. Moreover, the conflict between two or more instincts can sometimes modify the original impulse.
In man, when two instinctive reactions clash, the intellect determines the best course to follow, and the will then holds one instinct in check while encouraging the other. With animals that lack intellect and will, when two instinctive impulses clash, the one most favored by circumstances prevails.
At times, these internal or external stimuli affecting an animal's instinctive impulses result in cases of animal "filicide," "cannibalism" and "homosexuality."
Contention 2: Gender is not derived from nature.
Gender is an intellectual ideal formed by society not something found in nature. "The most important factor was the adoption of gender in the 1970s by feminist scholars as a way of distinguishing “socially constructed” aspects of male–female differences (gender) from “biologically determined” aspects (sex). This distinction is now only fitfully respected, and gender is often used as a simple synonym of sex.
The rise of gender has been accompanied by complaints that the word should refer only to grammatical categories (Fletcher, 1991; Goodhart, 1992; Smyth, 1968) or to socially but not biologically determined differences (Fishman,Wick, & Koenig, 1999; Kim & Nafziger, 2000; Lewine, 1994; Pearson, 1996; Walker & Cook, 1998; Wilson, 2000)." So gender is not a biologically or naturally determined thing, instead it is determined by gender, or your sexual identity which is SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED.
Sorry audience. The resolution is wrong. I challenged Preston to debate homosexual sex is natural, not homosexuality is natural. Sorry for the confusion, and we'll be taking this OP as Preston already began.
II. Gender is not natural
I guess I'll start with this argument, since it's the crux of the oppositions position. Gender is indeed natural. It is a set of characteristics inherent upon birth shared by a common group of people. My opponent confuses gender roles with gender itself. Which is why I actually want to give another definition, but in the same context. I only do this, because I hate when the opposition doesn't select the top or second definition.
Gender: the state of being male or female
The fact is, that gender is indeed a natural trait, and I have to say, I don't understand what the hell my opponent is talking about. His resolution can be summed up as "Homosexuality is not a natural trait because gender doesn't exist". The opposition should explain this reasoning, as I genuinely don't understand it. Maybe this is some higher form of thinking, but "natural law" is the common key to finding metaphysical problem, and about every philosopher I know has affirmed gender differation in their studies and works.
I am left concluding that my opponent has confused two terms, one being "identity" and "gender" itself. There is a huge difference. In reality, "identity" has absolutely nothiong to do with homosexuality is natural. Another example of "X is true and X posseses Y, so Z is not real". Or for clalrification, "sex is natural and sex involves unnatural gender, so Z is not natural". At least I think :/
End of story, homosexuality is not a gender or a sex. It's a sexual preference.
II. Sex is natural
My opponent has conceded this point....
"...is not a sex, which is derived from nature..."
III. Additional Argument
Just in case the opposition switches course, I will attempt to formulate an argument on why homosexuality is a natural occurence. Or the act of having sex between two males or two females happens naturally. Sexual phenotypes are decided in the reactor. Where they clash and prove the basis of ones traits after leaving the womb. Tissue content can affect the process, including sexual reactants in the brain.
Just as we all have taste buds which tell us whatwe like to eat, we also have "senses" that light up when someone we see is sexually attractive. We can't control when testesterone lights up, or for which people it does it for, but we know that it is not easily controlled. Can it? Most certainly. Sexual turn ons, or "fetishes, can even change over time. Which leads me to my main contention.
Natural interactions, as I'm attempting to prove, are not built upon societal constructs. Both men and woman build up stress and tension with testesterone and estrogen. Ussually the only ways to release this tension is through masturbation or sex. It is no different in nature. If two people share a common attraction in their brain, they will get together and relieve tension, just like any other natural need. The only difference between heterosexual sex and homosexual sex, is that two of the same sexes are involved in the process. Both have the same goal. Two natural entities getting together to satisfy a need. This is perfectly alligned with natural law.
I'm going to work a couple things out of my opponent, because even though I have the BOP, these questions will greatly determine the winner...
1) Can you prove that sexual preference is determined by societal constructs?
2) Are you denying that homosexuality isn't decided by chemical composition?
3) Is it not true that the interaction between male and male is done to satisfy a natural need?
I.Homosexuality is a gender
This point was left un-refuted, thus it flows to me and stands as is.
II.Sex is natural
this is true but its important to note that its different from gender, and my opponent didn't address that.
III.Gender is not natural
I have won this point, it has ben left essentially un-refuted except un-backed opinion and a definition. So I will address the definition and extend my arguments.
Gender:the state of being male or female
right, however looking further down on the definition, under FULL DEFINITION it states: the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex.
Gender: the state of being male or female- the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex.
which means that Gender is subjective. I would like to point you back to my UNREFUTED QUOTE “socially constructed” aspects of male–female differences (gender) from “biologically determined” aspects (sex). This distinction is now only fitfully respected, and gender is often used as a simple synonym of sex." so gender is a socially constructed aspect, NOT NATURALY CONSTRUCTED. Thus this point shifts in my favor. because it is different from sex.
This contention unsupported, he provides a single card to support a contention that is broad and unrealistic. HOWEVER his card that states animals exhibit homosexual activity are flawed, they state "penguins of the same sex engage in “mating rituals like entwining their necks and vocalizing to one another.”" none of which is homosexual activity. It also considers Giraffes rubbing necks homosexual activity, but we clearly see that isn't either. Again as my NAARTH card stated "Anyone engaged in the most elementary animal observation is forced to conclude that animal "homosexuality," "filicide" and "cannibalism" are exceptions to normal animal behavior. " this point clearly flows to me.
V. Desire V. Need;
Sex is a not a need it is a desire, if it was a need we would cease to exist because be don't get it. so people like Sisters in the church, monks, priests, ect. who don't participate in sex are all dead. it is a desire because its something they want, they can live without it, so all the arguments about how sex is needed to satisfy a sex drive are false.
1) I show homosexuality is a gender and gender is a social construct.
2) my opponent who holds the BOP hasn't shown chemical composition determines homosexual activity, instead he says they are just fulfilling a desire, this would indicate heterosexuals are homosexual as well if there is only me around.
3) Sex is not a natural need, instead its a desire.
But these questions aren't the real issue;
Because my opponent holds the BOP he must show; Homosexuality is natural. if he doesn't fulfill this Burdon then he doesn't win.
I. Homosexuality is a gender
I didn't drop this. Please don't say that, as I had three paragraphs on it. Your point is fallacious and nonsensical. Homosexuality isn't a gender. I don't even see how gender correlates with two men or two woman fvcking. What does gender have to do with the resolution in the slightest?
Audience, gender doesn't have to do with the resolution. I don't understand my opponents argument.
"Homosexuaity is not natural because the word gender is not natural". LOL, WTF!!!! I don't get his weird and nonsense arguments. Homosexuality is intercourse preference to another person of your sex. Gender has nothing to do with it.
II. Sex is natural
Homosexuality is attraction to a man or woman of the same sex. Gender has nothing to do with this debate. Your own arguments that "sex" is natural are broken. I don't get his broken arguments on subjective gender. .Him saying that I dropped his points is false. His points are whacky and silly.
III. Homosexuality is natural
Animals are beside the point. We are having a metaphysics disscussion. In metaphysical dialogue, philosophers would attempt to prove an argument by showing how things look at their base. I have more than proven this point. If society, government, and community didn't exist, would homosexuality still exist? That's the question philosophers would ask.
If we were to take away society, would people still commit homoexual acts? The answer is yes, because homosexuality is motivated by sexual attraction in the brain. Not society. My opponent needs to refute this claim. Is homosexuality motivated by culture? I reason no, and quite well. Additionally, I brought up some scientific points last round. I wish to expand on them here with sources. Hopefully these sources will prove that sexual attraction is a natural occurence from brain and chemical composition.
Sexual attraction is determined by who we are. Such as our brain waves, emotions, and personality. My opponent hasn't refuted this.
IV. Animals and homosexuality
Here are some more articles for my opponent to read. They all confirm the same things. Hell, sex is done completely through males with seahorses. I don't trust his NAARTH site as it was obviously conservative biased when I read it.
Here is a photo of two homosexual animals having sex.
If that's not evidence enough for my opponent, I have provided a couple videos. Can my opponent still refute homosexuality wouldn't exist without societal constructs?
V. Desire vs Need
My opponent is correct here, but it actually doesn't matter. In nature, if two animals have a desire, in this case, to relieve pent up sexual tension, they will. Just as in life. If we have a need, we will fill it. If we have a desire, we'll try our best to fullfill it. People will desire these things whether or not society exists anyways.
1) Your argument doesn't make sense though. In this instance, you have a slight expectation to prove that homosexuality is created by society and not genuine sexual attraction. You haven't done that.
2) That's beside the point even if I hadn't. I have shown several articles on how sexual attraction is determined by mentality. Here are several more indepth studies in case my opponent wasn't satisfied.
Sexual attraction is determined by Seratonin levels and how they mix with our personality.
3)That doesn't make sense. Can it not be a natural desire?
My opponent is right, I do have the BOP, but that doesn't put him off the hook. He still has some responcibilities in proving homosexuality is actually created by society. This is known in debating as having an "Absence of Evidence". Or I made a claim that is definite unless proven false, so the "Absence of Evidence" really gives the opposition the BOP if you want to get technical.
I. Homosexuality is a gender
My opponent has dropped my points, he gave refutation backed simply by a definition that doesn't mean what hes tring to portray, now GENDER IS IMPORTANT HERE, if homosexuality is a gender, look at my first contention in round 1, and gender isn't natural is socially constructed, thus I win todays debate, plane and simple! He has yet to refute this with actual evidence thus it flows to me.
II. Sex is natural
again this is to show the difference between gender and sex, we both agreed they were different after round 2 where neither of us refuted it.
III. Homosexuality is natural
no homosexual act would not occur without society, my opponent has given no examples of when society disappeared 2 adults that had never known society got it on. HE HOLDS THE BOP DONT LET HIM GET AWAY WITH THIS. he brings up attraction is natural but DOESNT RELATE IT TO HOMOSEXUALITY.
IV.Animals and homosexuality
So basically his refutation to my card is "its biased" thus because it doesn't side with him its wrong, this isn't an appropriate refutation. So yes I can answer his "Animals and Homosexuality" point.
NAARTH states "At times, these internal or external stimuli affecting an animal's instinctive impulses result in cases of animal "filicide," "cannibalism" and "homosexuality." so essentially human interaction comes into play leading to distorted animals but again ""Anyone engaged in the most elementary animal observation is forced to conclude that animal "homosexuality," "filicide" and "cannibalism" are exceptions to normal animal behavior. " and since society plays into effect with these animals too, this point flows to me.
V. Desire vs Need
Glad we agree that its a desire and thus arguments including the so called "Need" for sex are flawed.
MY OPPONENT HAS NOT SHOWN HOW THEY ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS, I gave you a response and rather than applying his questions that he is requiring to be met, he refuted my answers. Audience realize that he doesn't even meet his own requirements.
My opponent also holds the BOP and hasn't fulfilled it, thus we only see a ballot in favor of the NEG.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by Daltonian 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro met his BoP. Most of Con's arguments were derivative of misconception and were simple statements that didn't go in detail very much. Pro made a great point with his "mammals" argument, which went over con's head.
Vote Placed by KhalifV 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: This is absurd. Con seems to not have taken biology. All his arguments were based of his misconception of gender, thus all subsequent argument was flawed. Pro's best argument was the argument for the homosexuality prevalent in other mammals. It has long been established by ethologist and biologist that homosexuality is natural.
Vote Placed by ESocialBookworm 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: WHAT THE FLAPJACKS???!!! Homosexuality is a sexual orientation, not a gender. I'm a little confused about what Con was possibly thinking about. I think Con thought Pro was speaking about hermaphrodites maybe... But then- Pro met the BoP. If this were 7point though, I would've given Con the conduct point because Pro cursed.
Vote Placed by Domr 2 years ago
|Who won the debate:||-|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro made Con go first, and then tried to change the given definitions of gender. Con stated how gender is subjective and homosexuality can be considered gender (identity). This went unrefuted. Pro also made no arguments, only rebuttals and questions.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.