The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
9 Points

Homosexuality is not a choice and is ok.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+5
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 2 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/1/2017 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 849 times Debate No: 101612
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (5)
Votes (2)




Homosexuality is ok. I will not accept unsubstantiated information, nor will I accept arguments based on Holy scripture. If you feel you can, using science and observable phenomenon, prove that homosexuality is in some way wrong, feel free to comment and/or challenge.


I accept this debate. Since Pro has not stated the format of the debate I will do so.

Round 1: Acceptance

Round 2: Arguments

Round 3: Rebuttals and Conclusion

No new arguments should be made in round three.

Also as Pro has stated Holy Scripture (The Christian Bible) will not be used as a valid source.

Good Luck.

Debate Round No. 1


Homosexuality is natural. There is extensive scientific documentation that most animals engage in bisexual acts, and that some engage in homosexual acts, including raising young and staying monogamous with a same-sex partner. So the idea that it is in some way unnatural is unsubstantiated. All Great Apes (the group of primates that humans fall into) have been documented as having some kind of homosexual relations.
And the idea that homosexuality spreads disease faster than heterosexuality, while not without basis, is not the epidemic it is thought to be. In bi and lesbian women, STI rates are comparable to straight women, if not lower. While for men there is an up tick in STI rates, this is more likely due to other factors, such as the tendency of homosexual men to be more promiscuous or to have unprotected sex, due to poor education on homosexual health. These statistics were also shifted by the AIDS epidemic. In short, if one takes the proper precautions such as condoms and STI checks, there is no documented reason for homosexuality to be more dangerous than heterosexuality.
As for the thought that homosexuality is a choice, I have a question. (I am aware this bit is hardly scientifically supported evidence, but it rings true none the less.) Is being straight a choice? I am under the assumption that you are straight yourself, and if so, when did you chose not to be gay? The idea that it is a choice means that everyone has made that choice. Also, why would anyone choose to be gay? If it were truly a choice, no one would willingly choose to be discriminated against and ostracized if they could just choose not to be.

"Sexual risk factors among self-identified lesbians, bisexual women, and heterosexual women accessing primary care settings."



I want to start by saying I will not argue that Homosexuality is a choice. I relies this is in the debate title but in my opponents opening statement he/she never brings up this point. They simply state,

“If you feel you can, using science and observable phenomenon, prove that homosexuality is in some way wrong, feel free to comment and/or challenge.”

Therefore I will not be arguing that people chose homosexuality but simply give proofs for why homosexual actions are wrong. My argument will be as follows:

  1. 1. Our body parts have purposes

  2. 2. It is wrong use our body contrary to it’s nature

  3. 3. Homosexual acts use the human body contrary to its nature.

Also let me define some terms for clarification:

Nature: Dealing with the natural law, not to be confused with something simply found in the universe.

Ordered: Something directed/oriented/leading to the end of that thing according to its nature.

Disordered: Something not leading to the end of a thing, against its nature.

Example: A tree has a nature that makes it grow. Rain and sunlight are ordered to bring about the end of growth. A lumberjack cuts the tree down and cuts off the tree from its end. Therefore to the tree the act of the lumberjack is disordered and wrong.


Our Body Parts Have Purposes

Before we talk about homosexuality we must first have a basic understanding of our human anthropology. The fundamental purpose of each of our body parts is not something that we decide for ourselves, but rather something we discover. For example, no one wakes up one day and decides for themselves their ears are for hearing, eyes for seeing, or nose for smelling. The purposes of our body parts are self-evident, or have intrinsic natures. We do not choose their purposes we discover them. For a males reproductive organ it has an intrinsic nature to ejaculate semen to fertilize an egg, and this is self-evident.

It is Wrong to Use Our Body Contrary to Its Nature

This is a very simple premise. If our body parts have purposes, then to use them against their purpose is wrong, otherwise the purpose would not exist. So Just as it is wrong to want eat with our nose, it is also wrong to use our reproductive organs outside the act heterosexual intercourse.

Homosexual Acts Use the Human Body Contrary to Its Nature

This is accepted by everyone with all our body parts. Yet for some reason when we go below the belt to our reproductive organs everything becomes relative. Now I decide for myself what my body parts are for and who are you to tell me I’m wrong. The reality is the male and female reproductive organs also have an intrinsic nature and homosexual acts are not aligned to this nature. Since the male and female reproductive organs have as the end of their use the procreation of life any act that is not ordered to bring about that end is against its nature.

This does not mean heterosexual acts the do no create life are disordered because the act itself is still ordered for the end of life. If some other factor such as an infertile period mean no life is created it is not the act of sex that caused it but rather the infertility. Homosexual actions on the other hand are never ordered for the procreation of life since they use the reproductive organ outside its nature.

Sources: 1.

Debate Round No. 2


While reproduction is the end goal of all life, the idea that anything which does not directly lead to procreation is somehow unnatural or wrong is untrue. Were this the case, everything from winking to sign language would be unnatural. The idea that body parts have one fixed function, and that any other use of said body part is wrong is a discredit to the human body and human ingenuity. Is communicating with one's hands, or sign language, wrong in some way? Of course not! But it nonetheless is a "misuse" of the hands; that is not what hands were "intended" for. There is no greater intent of any body function. they have evolved for certain reasons, sure, but this does not mean they are exclusively meant for that; that would imply intention other than a functional organism behind evolution, which is simply unfounded. Also, the sex drive, be it homo or heterosexual, is an urge similar to/ connected to the urge to procreate, so by this logic suppressing homosexuality is just as unnatural. The nature of human life has changed in the past few centuries however. Homosexuality in the modern world in no way impairs the ability to nurture a child. And in the modern world where one can either simply adopt, or if it specifically needs to be your genetics and lineage to count, then you could use a method such as artificial insemination of a surrogate mother. While there was a time in which homosexuality would have been harmful to the individual's procreative ability, it has no effect on the ability to procreate in the modern world.
Even on just the base level of procreation, which is not all there is to life (despite being the end goal instinctively speaking), there is no significant danger to this goal as proposed by homosexuality.
In short, homosexuality is not a choice, but a natural urge on par with that of procreation. It also does not mitigate the ability to pass on your genes and procreate, but instead just changes the manner in which to do so.



Your argument consists of three parts, I will address each one.

Homosexuality is Natural

You say homosexuality is natural, and by natural you do not mean acting according to the natural law but simply occurring in nature. Specifically you mention animals engaging in homosexual acts. But since when did we say that everything animals do is okay or acting according to the natural law. This is absurd considering many animal species cannibalize their young, kill out of rage, and kill over mating rights. The last two are especially common in apes and seems to have extra meaning to you. But since when do we go around justifying cannibalism and murder because its "natural". As anyone can see this argument has no authority to tell humans what is morally right or wrong. If we follow this logic we must also consider cannibalism and murder okay, simply because they occur in nature. Since no one is willing to admit this then we must throw out the argument.

Finally the source you used ( never even mentions homosexuality so this has not been backed up by any data that you have provided. (I'm not saying it’s not true, only that you have not shown it in this debate)

Homosexuality Doesn't Spread Disease faster

This argument makes no sense at all. No one argues that homosexuality is wrong because it transmits disease faster. This has no impact on the topic whatsoever and seems to be just thrown in to make your arguments longer. Heterosexual acts are not considered wrong when one person transmits a disease and neither are homosexual acts simply because they might also do so. It's not the passing of disease that makes an action wrong it’s a completely different discussion. Regardless I will address your augment.

First of all the source you provided ( never speaks about STI rates, not even once. A simple search of the page (Ctrl + F) comes up with zero finding for the words “STI rates”. So not only does this topic have no meaning but you obviously didn't provide any evidence for your claim. In fact according to the CDC the opposite is true[1]. So not only does this argument have nothing to do with morality it is also based on false information.

Not A Choice

Once again this argument has no real effect on the resolution is homosexuality is okay. As I mentioned in my post I don't believe homosexuality is a choice and anyone who does is acting out of ignorance. The reality is we do not say that all things about us the we do not choose are okay. We do not go and tell a psychopath to kill people just because he never choose those thoughts. So just because we are inclined to a certain feeling doesn't mean that feeling is automatically okay. We must look at the action and whether the action has any defects in intention, circumstance, or in nature. For homosexual acts because is it against the nature of our bodies it can never be called ordered. So again this argument is very week.


In conclusion none of your arguments have any real substance after looking at them. We don't condone actions just because animals dot hem, we don't consider STI rates when considering morality, and we don't say that all impulses we have are okay just because we have them. You have never provided any real evidence for why homosexual acts can be considered similar or on the same level as heterosexual acts. So you have not proved the resolution.

Finally in looking at your last post you have countless straw-mans. You have not read what I wrote or completely misunderstood it.

Vote Con.


Debate Round No. 3
5 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 5 records.
Posted by OncomingStorms 1 year ago
When did you choose? And why would anyone choose to be gay? Just to face discrimination for the fun of it.?Women aren't born with breasts, but they don't have a choice in that. Not everything is developed at birth. Homosexuality is one of those things.
Posted by KingofTheSkullServants 1 year ago
OncommingStorms, I'm sorry to break this to you, but being homosexual is a choice. Everyone isn't born with the knowledge of what gender they're going to be dating. You could argue hormones, but isn't it hormones that get people like on another start? If I had to pick my stance on this, it would be that homosexuality is optional and isn't inherently wrong.
Posted by KingofTheSkullServants 1 year ago
I'm just going to say this now, and I don't care if this has already been said, but it's one's decision to be homosexual or not. We all don't go into this world already knowing what sex is and what we have to do for the human race to continue. You can't exactly for everyone to love the opposite gender. If that was the case, then the two gay girls (or lesbians) at the early college high school I go to wouldn't be together.
Posted by one2one 1 year ago
sorry for the bad spacing, the format didn't transfer properly.
Posted by one2one 1 year ago
I would like to accept
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by KingofTheSkullServants 1 year ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Personally, homosexuality isn't wrong and is a decision. Not everyone is born with who they're going to date. If that was the case, then we would know what we are supposed to do as humans, right when we're born.
Vote Placed by Capitalistslave 1 year ago
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't give either arguments, and I don't have to explain why, I just didn't feel either had convincing arguments. As for sources, I give them to con because pro used sources that weren't relevant to what they were arguing for, for example the source didn't even discuss homosexuality and the source doesn't talk about STI rates among men and women. The one source con used is relevant to what they brought up about natural law.