The Instigator
ScottyDouglas
Pro (for)
Winning
15 Points
The Contender
girg
Con (against)
Losing
13 Points

Homosexuality is not natural

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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 8 votes the winner is...
ScottyDouglas
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 6/26/2012 Category: Society
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 7,344 times Debate No: 24453
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (37)
Votes (8)

 

ScottyDouglas

Pro

Thanks to anyone who reads and accepts.

I am currently looking for interest in this debate and will choose who really wants to debate this. Please post a short reason why you want to debate this and I will choose one by the end of the day. Thanks.

Resolution: Homosexuality is not natural!

BOF:
Burden of proof is upon both. Pro must show that homosexuality is not natural. Con must show that homosexuality is natural. Winner will be the debater who provides the most convincing argument.

Definition of Natural- based on the state of things in nature; constituted by nature: existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial).

Round 1 is for acceptance. Last round is for conclusions primarily, no new arguments permitted but rebuttals allowed.

Rules are no plagiarizing or trolling. Also Be respectful.

GL and thanks.
girg

Con

I accept this debate in the position of CON. I will argue that Homosexuality is natural according to PROs definition.
Debate Round No. 1
ScottyDouglas

Pro

=Intro= I would like to thank GIRG for accepting this debate. I wish him luck.

{WARRANT}- The justification for my resolution is that it is not based on the state of things in nature. It has been common knowledge that homosexuality is not constituted by nature. Though existing in nature it is not built into our physical form. Homosexuality is artificial, Hence this debate.

(C1)- OUR PHYSICAL FORM
It is not a eye opener to learn that our biology does not support homosexuality. In fact there is no biological reasons for homosexuality. The natural order of the planet is male and female.

If this is not the case then many of our species would drastically decrease in number. This is in fact in opposition of nature. Homosexuality serves no real function in the overall advancement of all of humanity as a species. It is unnatural because it accomplishes nothing written within our form. Should we overlook our design?

(C2)- NATURAL LAW
The natural law, or the law of nature, is a system that is purportedly determined by nature, and thus universal. "True law is right reason in agreement with nature," as Cicero put it.
Classically, natural law refers to the use of reason in human nature. According to natural law it holds that morality is a function of human nature and reason can discover moral principles by looking at the nature of humanity. Natural rights are not upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government and is therefore universal.

Homosexuality is often referred to as sodomy and perverse. Sexual acts by these terms are understood by courts to include any sexual act deemed unnatural. Perverseness is the persistent or obstinate in what is wrong or unnatural. It rejects what is right and good. Homosexual acts are in its nature most certainly in disagreement with our natural law.

(C3)- MENTAL ILLNESS
A really good case can be brought against homosexuality in its lifestyle itself. In its most extreme form it is mentally disturbing. It is said that homosexuality is acceptable because it has no stress over the person over their sexual orientation.

Though just because an individual does not directly feel distress does not make the disorder normal. It is a ego-synotic disorder which the sufferer considers their disorder to be crucial to their sense of self. Homosexuality is not the only ego-syntonic paraphilia, as frotteurism and voyeurism are also.

There are three characters in every mental disorder: extent of distress, impairment in life and abnormal behavior. Homosexuality fit all three.

This can apply to those individuals who are not able to fulfill the required reproduction and continuation of their genes. Abnormality of these behaviors is obvious, given the strong correlates with counterculture, drug use, and Gender Identity Disorder.

[IMPACT]
This is not a suggestion that we should judge homosexuals, homosexuals need help, not just the back of our hand. It is really a sickness. We should not discriminate against them, but their actions, which is wrong and a path of sickness that will lead to health and soceitial issues. When someone is sick, you help them.

=SOURCES=
girg

Con


And now here is my side:

(C1) - It is not only found in humans
To state the obvious; humans are not the only aspect of nature. I argue that homosexuality is natural, ergo covering all forms of nature. I would like to talk about the research of Bruce Bagemihil. Bruce is a Canadian biologist and published the book Biological exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity. I have cited below the list of all animals noted to have homosexual or bisexual behaviors. There is an extensive list of birds and mammals that show homosexual behavior. If homosexuality is not natural, then how can hundreds of types of species reflect homosexual behaviors?
(C2) - The mass populations and testimonies of homosexuals would lean towards the idea that it is not a choice and is integrated into their genetic code at birth.
I do realize that the idea of a "gay gene" is still under testing by scientists for now. However Richard Dawkings explains how something like the "gay gene" might have survived through history, even though logically, it should have died out millions of years ago due to the fact that homosexuality does not produce offspring. Attached video below. He explains how society would "protect" homosexuals by the trust of others under their care and how it would carry on. Logically homosexuality would have died out a long time ago if it served no purpose. Sort of like our appendix, as it has been growing smaller over many generations with its lack of purpose.

Those are the two points I could come up with, assuming the next round is for rebuttal.
links:
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 2
ScottyDouglas

Pro

=Intro=

I would like to thank GIRG again for accepting this debate.


_REBUTTAL_

My opponent did not respond to any of my contentions from last round. Because of that I will drop them all to this round. In this round I will be brief and just rebuttal my opponent.

C1) - It is not only found in humans

My opponent appears to claim that homosexuality is normal amongst animals. Though homosexuality is not normal animal behavior. It can not be called animal instincts. As humans we have intellect that determines the best course to follow. It is not so with animals they lack the intellect and will. The stimuli affecting an animal's instinctive impulses result in cases of animal "homosexuality." Since animals lack reason, their means of expressing their affective states are limited. Animals also appear homosexual due the need of social dominance amongst its kind.

Jacque Lynn Schultz, ASPCA Animal Sciences Director of Special Projects, explains further:

Usually, an un-neutered male dog will mount another male dog as a display of social dominance--in other words, as a way of letting the other dog know who's boss. While not as frequent, a female dog may mount for the same reason.

This behavior does not stem from a instinct that is part of animal nature. Dr. Antonio Pardo, Professor of Bioethics at the University of Navarre, explains:

Properly speaking, homosexuality does not exist among animals.... For reasons of survival, the reproductive instinct among animals is always directed towards an individual of the opposite sex. Therefore, an animal can never be homosexual as such. Nevertheless, the interaction of other instincts (particularly dominance) can result in behavior that appears to be homosexual. Such behavior cannot be equated with an animal homosexuality. All it means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction.

As we see Homosexuality in the animal kingdom is not natural nor is it frequent. In fact it is a by product of other social behaviors as the for said (social dominance).

(C2) - The mass populations and testimonies of homosexuals would lean towards the idea that it is not a choice and is integrated into their genetic code at birth.

I offer a video of my own contradicting my opponent. -->

He also suggests that homosexuality is wide spread and accepted by most and of course it is natural. It is not approved by most. Also it is not normal nor natural and here is why... it is Ego-Synotic disorder. This disorder denotes aspects of a person's thoughts, impulses, attitudes, and behavior that are felt to be acceptable and consistent with the self-conception.

There are three characters in every mental disorder: extent of distress, impairment in life and abnormal behavior. Again homosexuality fit all three. Therefore it is not natural but in fact artificial and that is opposed to natural.

[IMPACT]- Those that are more exposed in society the more who will develop this mental disorder.

Negated: Resolved: I have shown that there is nothing natural from homosexuality. Homosexual behavior is a mental disorder from issues within society. This also could be from the overwhelming thought of reproduction which in turns repulses those with this disorder.

=SOURCES=

http://narth.com... http://www.freerepublic.com... http://brighthorizon.us... http://www.petfinder.com... http://www.conservapedia.com... http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

girg

Con

I must first apologize for not fully understanding Cons wanted structure, I followed it as Acceptance, arguments, rebuttal, then conclusions.
Anyways here are my rebuttals to cons arguments in round 2:
REBUTTAL
C1 - Our physical form
I would ask for "natural order" to be defined more clearly, as male and female pairings are not always consistent, clearly illustrated by gay couples. Homosexuality has been consistent for thousands and possibly millions of years, if this is the case, how is it not natural?
"It is unnatural because it accomplishes nothing written within our from"
Well I am sure a homosexual sure wouldn't agree with that.
"Should we overlook our design?"
Why not? We cannot see infrared naturally, does that mean we shouldn't use infrared goggles because it isn't part of our design?

C2 - natural law
I have never heard of Homosexuality being referred to as "Sodomy and perverse"(ergo contradicting the courts law on sexual acts deemed unnatural)
Sodomy can be committed by a man or a woman towards another man or woman. That mean that it is NOT restricted to homosexual acts, this includes heterosexual acts.
On the perverseness of it, what is right and what is wrong is guided by religion and morals, not necessarily what is defined by nature. I am failing to see how Natural law actually connects to homosexuality. According to Thomas Hobbes, Natural law is:
"a precept, or general rule, found out by reason, by which a man is forbidden to do what is destructive of his life, or takes away the means of preserving the same; and to omit that by which he thinks it may be best reserved."
-Hobbes, Leviathan, pt. 1, ch. 14 (p. 64)
Clearly this does not apply at all to homosexuality, but instead applies to all men and those who live. Homosexuality is not in contradiction to natural law.

C3 - Mental illness
"it is said that homosexuality is accepted because it has no stress over the person over their sexual orientation"
I am not even sure what to make of this. How can they not have "stress"? Homosexuals are constantly berated by society based on their sexual orientation, do you not think that creates stress?
I fail to see how homosexuality is at all any more ego-syntonic than heterosexuality. A persons ego is personal, just like their sexual orientation. A heterosexual and a homosexual have an equal chance of being considered egosyntonic. On the idea of frotteurism and voyeurism, heterosexuals can most definitely engage in those as heterosexual acts just as much as homosexuals.
Homosexuality is not a mental disorder.
Debate Round No. 3
ScottyDouglas

Pro

I must first apologize for not fully explaining the structure and that is not Con's fault. Also I do not suggest that Con's should have rebuttal my argument in his round 2, that is was his choice.

Here is my conclusion:

We established without rebuttal that animals are not homosexual at all it is a display of social dominance toward one another. Nor has homosexuality ever been a norm.

C1 - Our physical form

I would like to define "natural order" more clearly.

The natural order is the moral source from which natural law seeks to derive. It encompasses the natural relations of beings to one another. Natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature and deduce binding rules of moral behavior. Morality is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and those that are bad (or wrong). Human nature refers to the distinguishing characteristics, including ways of thinking, feeling and acting, that humans tend to have naturally. Our physical form is obvious.

C2 - natural law

Homosexuality has and is been referred to as "Sodomy and perverse." Homosexuality is inexplicably irrational: it is contrary to what is regarded as normal or reasonable, often for reasons that seem unaccountable. Homosexuality is also self-defeating and society-defeating. Homosexuality can not reproduce anyone.

My opponent also gave us a quote last round, "According to Thomas Hobbes, Natural law is: "a precept, or general rule, found out by reason, by which a man is forbidden to do what is destructive of his life, or takes away the means of preserving the same; and to omit that by which he thinks it may be best reserved."

-Hobbes, Leviathan, pt. 1, ch. 14 (p. 64)

Man is forbidden to do what is destructive to his life- Is not homosexuality destructive to humanity as a whole if it was global? Cant the notion that homosexuals do have higher health risks than heterosexuals so it is unnatural?

Or takes away the means of preserving the same; and to omit that by which he thinks it may be best reserved- Homosexuals can not omit the disease in which they harm themselves and others by exposer.

C3 - Mental illness

There are three characters in every mental disorder: extent of distress, impairment in life and abnormal behavior. Homosexuality fit all three. Though ego-synotic disorder can be spread into heterosexuals as well as homosexuals- all homosexuals have ego-synotic disorder. There that is a specific disorder that homosexuals have and is is a problem.

I thank my opponent for this debate! Vote Pro!

Resources:

http://www.conservapedia.com...http://en.wikipedia.org...(philosophy) http://plato.stanford.edu...

girg

Con

I would first like to thank Pro for choosing me as an opponent. This was probably my most challenging debates because it made me look at homosexuality in a different way and was a really solid debate.
I believe my rebuttals were stronger as naturally, my arguments.
To reiterate my points:
It is not only found in humans, but in animals too. Even if it was showing social dominance, it is still homosexual behavior.
If it is not natural, why are there so many homosexuals? Pros youtube video seemed quite biased due to an evangelist origin.
Homosexuality does not contradict natural law. Natural law is a set of rules used to guide humans in a conscience decision in order to form a better society.
I would like to thank Pro for this debate.
Vote con!
Debate Round No. 4
37 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by enlil 2 years ago
enlil
Great job Scottie -
I would like to add this to the argument -
1. Homosexuality is a mental disorder. It was once taught in medical books however, once the homosexual community grew, had more influence, was able to lobby, the medical books changed to state it is normal/natural behavior.
1a. Do pedophiles have a mental disorder? Do people who have a sex with animals have a mental disorder? If so, how does this differ from Homosexuals? Homosexuality is a sexual choice, same as Pedophiles with there attraction to children or people into animals. It is not normal behavior, the wiring in the brain is deformed, otherwise if it was normal we ALL would be homosexuals because it would be the normal function of a healthy brain.
1b. There is no evidence of a GAY GENE.
2. Humans would be extinct if homosexuality was the natural process of life. Darwin's natural selection survival of the fittest. The purpose of sex is to have children which can only be done with a human male and human female. We make the choice to use sex/masturbation for pleasure but, for the purpose of the cycle of life, the need of sexual pleasure is not required. We make the choice as to what we chose to get off on, be it opposite sex, same sex, toys, animals, other. No one is born to only be sexually aroused by sheep or same sex. Society changes peoples ways of thinking, or trauma, or mental disorder, or simply the choice they desire. No one is born as a homosexual and its a natural process. If they are born Gay, its because they have a mental impairment. What about women who were beat by men for years and turn lesbian - Were they born that way? Is it natural? No, they are traumatized by men, don't want to be alone, and CHOOSE to try out members of the same sex. If I raise a child under the belief that we only have sex with members of the same sex, do not expose the child to any other type of view - This child will grow up Gay, was this child born this way? Was it natural? NO
Posted by girg 4 years ago
girg
Darn, 15 to 13. Close one. Well played pro, well played.
Posted by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
Yo Scotty, want to debate whether homosexuality is a mental illness some time? I'd be happy to kick your arse on the matter.
Posted by Ore_Ele 4 years ago
Ore_Ele
Yes, murder is natural.
Posted by ScottyDouglas 4 years ago
ScottyDouglas
Is murder natural? Is child abuse natural? These are as ntural as homosexuality.
Posted by Ore_Ele 4 years ago
Ore_Ele
Also, let me know when you are ready, and I'll issue the challenge.
Posted by Ore_Ele 4 years ago
Ore_Ele
Not a problem, I got a debate that I'm waiting for Eggleston to post his round 1 (if he doesn't, the debate will auto reset).
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
===continued===
and (b) could equally describe human homosexuality: "sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction."

Pro says:
: As we see Homosexuality in the animal kingdom is not natural nor is it frequent.

Not natural? Happens only in zoos, or only in animals invented by gene splicing? What is Pro trying to say?

Not frequent? That's not relevant. According to Pro's definition, it is natural if it happens in nature, not if it happens frequently.

: I offer a video of my own contradicting my opponent. -->

A judge couldn't properly take cognizance of that video even if it had showed up.

: It is not approved by most.

Not relevant.

: Ego-Synotic disorder.

Pro doesn't explain this or substantiate it. We don't know what Pro means, but we can ignore whatever he's hinting at.

: Therefore it is not natural

Ego-Synotic disorder doesn't happen in nature?

: [IMPACT]- Those that are more exposed in society the more who will develop this mental disorder.

Even if this were true, and even if Pro supported the claim, it wouldn't have to do with whether homosexuality exists in nature.
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
Pro had the burden of proof to show that homosexuality is not natural.

Pro wrote:
: It has been common knowledge that homosexuality is not constituted by nature.

Common knowledge of the resolution holds no weight in a debate. Pro undertook to show that this alleged common knowledge is correct.

:Though existing in nature it is not built into our physical form.

I don't understand the latter part of that, but the first part looks like a concession.
- Pro undertook to prove that homosexuality isn't natural.
- Pro defined "natural" as meaning "existing in nature."
- Pro concedes that homosexuality exists in nature.

What's left to debate?

Con says animals do it. It happens in nature. It's natural.
That's a slam dunk. What can Pro say to that?

Pro says, "The stimuli affecting an animal's instinctive impulses result in cases of animal 'homosexuality.'" How is that different from homosexuality among humans? How is it a rebuttal?

Pro says animal homosexuality is dominance, not sex. An interesting claim. My dogs hump each other to show dominance. They aren't really having sex. They aren't mating. Is that all that Con's hundreds of animal species come to? Are they just dominance displays and not really sex? I don't believe that, but Con should have responded to this.

Pro has an expert say that homosexuality doesn't exist among animals "properly." Con needs an conflicting expert. Presumably, he could pull a quote from his link where his list of hundreds of homosexual animals is. But he can't expect us to do that research for him. We can't follow his links and watch his videos. This debate happens _on this page_.

Pro's expert shoots himself in the foot: "All [animal homosexual behavior] means is that animal sexual behavior encompasses aspects beyond that of reproduction." Con needs to point out that this (a) concedes that the animal behavior really is sexual, and (b) could equally describe human homosexuality: "sexual behavior
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
RFD: Grammar to Con because Pro was hard, sometimes impossible, to understand.
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by mcc1789 4 years ago
mcc1789
ScottyDouglasgirgTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro failed to establish that homosexuality is unnatural, while Con's arguments were more convincing that it was. Both sides uses biased sources, but Pro's used only these.
Vote Placed by socialpinko 4 years ago
socialpinko
ScottyDouglasgirgTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: C1) Pro failed to show that biological function necessarily predetermined sexual attraction. While true in most cases this was just taken as a given by Pro. C2) Con rightly argued that natural "law" doesn't really have to do with how people naturally are, it is focused on what ought to be. C3) I thought that the argument about mental illness by Pro was clearly moronic, Con didn't respond enough to actually refute it. Arguments to Pro. Sources to Con for using an evangelical website as evidence.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
ScottyDouglasgirgTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 4 years ago
RoyLatham
ScottyDouglasgirgTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Seems obvious Pro didn't meet the burden of proof. By his definition, he would have to prove homosexuality does not occur in nature. It does.
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
ScottyDouglasgirgTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: While pros arguments where fairly weak, (better approaches could have been taken), his points where poorly refuted. Also some of cons points where either debunked, weak, or shown to have circular logic. I think neither get sources. Either vote for sole wiki (only a good source in moderation), or NARTH/Conservapedia. 3-0 to pro
Vote Placed by Contra 4 years ago
Contra
ScottyDouglasgirgTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: PRO had more arguments which framed the debate from the beginning. When CON was presenting his arguments and rebuttals they were in the frame that PRO established. CON should of shown better that homosexuality is natural and is not a evolutionary byproduct more effectively, such as saying it is present and has not went away over time, or presented other justifications. Sources would've been tied, but PRO used some more biased sources, including Conservapedia, which is outright biased.
Vote Placed by AnalyticArizonan 4 years ago
AnalyticArizonan
ScottyDouglasgirgTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Con did not adequately show that homosexuality is natural and did not successfully counter Pro's arguments. Both of their sources were biased.
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 4 years ago
Ore_Ele
ScottyDouglasgirgTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: While Pro's arguments should have been refuted, Con did not successfully do that, and some of Con's arguments relied on circular logic, which Pro did point out.