The Instigator
sing_along
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
socialpinko
Con (against)
Winning
16 Points

Homosexuality is wrong and disgusting!

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 - Required
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/23/2011 Category: Science
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,877 times Debate No: 16094
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (15)
Votes (3)

 

sing_along

Pro

Although I am an overall liberal, let me get this straight, I don't believe that homosexuals should be discriminated against, and I don't believe gays should be prohibited to practice their sexuality if it is consensual.

But straight up, anal sex with another male is wrong, disgusting, and shameful. So they should be free to practice what they do, but they should not enforce their sexuality and code of conduct on the majority of the heterosexual population. It seems today that homosexuals are glorifying homosexuality, which leads people who are not naturally homosexual to become homosexual, just so they can feel special.

Prostitution is de-facto legal in the US, but it is not something to be ashamed of. Being gay and being a prostitute fall along the lines of sexual deviation. In the workplace, and public places, being a homosexual in any way alter a person's on-the-job performance, simply out of professionalism. But people should be allowed to discriminate against homosexuals on a personal basis, just as males can discriminate against less attractive females on a personal basis.

I will probably lose this debate due to overwhelming general pre-conceived disagreement, but my position is clear:

Homosexuality is wrong and disgusting, but homosexuals should not be discriminated against on a public basis.
socialpinko

Con

Allow me to first define the terms of the resolution.

Homosexuality: Homosexuality is romantic and/or sexual attraction or behavior between members of the same sex or gender.[1]

wrong: not in accordance with what is morally right or good.[2]

disgusting: to cause loathing or nausea.[3]

I can tell that this is my opponent's first debate as he just goes from saying that gay people should be able to fvck, but it's gross and wrong to saying that homosexuality is comparable to prostitution. This second point is actually confusing and I do not see what it has to do with the resolution and I will ask my opponent to clarify in the next round. Now on to my opponent's contentions.

"Homosexuality is wrong and disgusting, but homosexuals should not be discriminated against on a public basis."

I do agree with my opponent that gays should not be discrimiated on a public basis so we may drop this point. I will however disagree with my opponent that homosexualty is disgusting or wrong.

Contention 1
Homosexuality is disgusting

Now as there is no objective way to define something as disgusting this point is moot as the property is completely subjective. For example, I m a homosexual and consequently find the idea of heterosexual sex to be kind of gross. Now even though heterosexual sex might fit my own person definition of the word 'disgusting' that does not mean that objectively heterosexual sex is disgusting.

I will first ask my opponent to expand on what specifically about homosexuality he find so 'disgusting'. I will then ask my opponent why his personal opinion is more reliable than perhaps my own. If my opponent says homosexuality is disgusting and I say it is not then why should one listen to my opponent?

Contention 2
Homosexuality is wrong

Before I refeute this argument I will ask my opponent what moral code he is referring to. If it is moral relativism or his own personal opinion then I refer him to my last point. If it is from some form ofdivine law like Christianity or Islam my opponent will, as a pre-requesite for anyone taking it seriously, need to prove that said god exists.

I argue that there is no such thing as objective morality and thus no action, lifestyle, or color is inherently moral or immmoral. It will be my opponent's job as Pro and instigator to prove otherwise, or that morality does exist independently of the human mind.

I await my opponent's response.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2]http://dictionary.reference.com...
[3]http://dictionary.reference.com... gusting
Debate Round No. 1
sing_along

Pro

sing_along forfeited this round.
socialpinko

Con

My opponent has unfortunately forfeited this round so please simply extend my arguments.
Debate Round No. 2
sing_along

Pro

I apologize for the missed rebuttal because I was preparing for exams. But let’s get on with the debate.

I’d like to make a small correction on my initial post, what I meant to say was,

In the workplace, and public places, being a homosexual should not in any way alter a person's on-the-job performance, simply out of professionalism. But people should be allowed to discriminate against homosexuals on a personal basis,

Now onto the debate:

I fully understand that due to overwhelming scientific evidence and popular support against my original disposition against homosexuals, it will be a challenge to sway the tides of general established opinion, but I love a good challenge from time to time.

My opponent quotes:

“I argue that there is no such thing as objective morality and thus no action, lifestyle, or color is inherently moral or immoral.”

Pedophiles:

Certainly we agree that pedophiles are a bunch of immoral scum in this world. But I’d like to pose the question of whether it is the lack of consent for sexual intercourse between a child and an adult that makes the act immoral, or is it the actual act in itself which makes it immoral?

Suppose a 6 year old child gives full consent to a 48 year old adult make to have sexual intercourse, and the parents of that six year old child also give full consent to the pedophile. Moreover, a recent bill was passed making consensual pedophilia legal, under the circumstance that the parents, child and perpetrator give full consent. Then in that case, where the consent criteria is fulfilled and no law is being broken, is pedophilia, the act in itself, still “moral”?

Using my opponent’s subjective viewpoint of morality to view this, pedophilia would be considered moral relative to the action and the perpetrator…

So when to we draw the line between what is moral, and what is immoral?

I propose we draw a line between moral and immoral at the borderline between heterosexuality and homosexuality, under the pretense that some acts are pretty abominable in the act itself.

AIDS:

Advocates of homosexuality will argue that anal intercourse between two men is natural and risk-free. This was totally disproven during the Aids epidemic. But…

“Worldwide, an estimated 5–10% of HIV infections are the result of men having sex with men.[23] While in the United States, "men who have had sex with men since 1977 have an HIV prevalence (the total number of cases of a disease that are present in a population at a specific point in time) 60 times higher than the general population".

http://en.wikipedia.org...

We can certainly say that the spread of AIDS was largely attributed to the popularity of gay anal sex among men. This proves unprotected anal sex to be a media of easily transmittable sexual diseases, some of which can be lethal.

On the other hand, vaginal intercourse, though the risk of STD’s do arise, was never the cause of the spread of the HIV AIDS virus, because it was inherently hygienic even without protection. My point is the spread and popularity of unhygienic gay anal sex promoted the spread of HIV AIDS.

Anal Sex with men, not natural:

“Pain during receptive anal sex is formally known as anodyspareunia.[6] One study found that about 12% of gay men find it too painful to pursue, and concluded that the perception of anal sex as painful is just as likely to be psychologically or emotionally based as it is to be physically based.[74] Another study that examined pain during insertive and receptive anal sex in gay men found that 3% of tops (insertive partners) and 16% of bottoms (receptive partners) reported significant pain.[75]

http://en.wikipedia.org...

Of course the pain could be overcome with lubrication, but anything that inflicts pain too painful to pursue is not a “natural” act, I guess naturally, men weren’t just suppose to have anal sex with other men.


socialpinko

Con

Pedophiles

My opponent the slippery slope fallacy in saying that if homosexuality is seen as moral then eventually pedophilia will be seen as moral and that is wrong. He writes: "So when to we draw the line between what is moral, and what is immoral?".
First, my opponent did not show any reason why pedophilia was wrong. He simply made the argument from popularity in writing: "Certainly we agree that pedophiles are a bunch of immoral scum in this world". My opponent has not shown why pedophilia is wrong or why people seeing homosexuality as moral will lead to seeing pedophilia as moral. I will give my opponent the next round to prove his theory.

AIDS

"My point is the spread and popularity of unhygienic gay anal sex promoted the spread of HIV AIDS."

This is a summary of my opponents 'Argument from AIDS'. I will agree that the AIDS epidemic could be partly attributed to men having unprotected anal sex with each other. However this is really an argument against unprotected sex. Heterosexuals can still get AIDS from unprotected sex just like homosexuals.

Also, my opponent only claims that the HIV epidemic was attributed to unprotected anal sex with men. He says nothing about lesbians who are also gay.

Anal Sex with men, not natural:

My opponent claims that because a small percentage of people who receive anal sex feel pain, homosexuality cannot be natural and thus is wrong. My point still stands though that regardless of whether it is natural nothing is moral or immoral as morality is not objective. Also, my opponent has already admitted that homosexuality is natural. "I fully understand that due to overwhelming scientific evidence... against my original disposition against homosexuals, it will be a challenge to sway the tides of general established opinion" My opponent has not shown why something being painful makes it unnatural or why something being unnatural makes something immoral.

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 3
sing_along

Pro

sing_along forfeited this round.
socialpinko

Con

Extend all arguments.
Debate Round No. 4
sing_along

Pro

sing_along forfeited this round.
socialpinko

Con

Unfortunately my opponent has forfeited three of the five rounds and so has not given me much of a fun debate. However even with only a few rounds I have adequately refuted my opponent's rather weak arguments.

Vote Con
Debate Round No. 5
15 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
"Why don't you put in and Ishkawa diagram and Pugh charts too, fancy boxes and lines will just about intimidate anyone...."

No problem I can work them in, you want Feynman diagrams as well?
Posted by socialpinko 6 years ago
socialpinko
You're joking right?
Posted by Mr.Black 6 years ago
Mr.Black
....sing along is a beast. People need to read everything...then comment..jeez..
Posted by quarterexchange 6 years ago
quarterexchange
sing_along, you need to stop being so cheeky when people disagree with you.
Posted by sing_along 6 years ago
sing_along
Oh snappy, "Kagen construct" really fancy terms bro...-_-

Why don't you put in and Ishkawa diagram and Pugh charts too, fancy boxes and lines will just about intimidate anyone....
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
BTW, there's no difference between "ghays" and "gays" is there?

Yes, gays have anal sexual intercourse, ghays just have the buttseks.

Just in case your mind can't comprehend single sentences that convey double statements.

Cool story bro.

Want to debate this topic with me, I will defend that homosexuality is a perfectly good and moral action using objective morality as defined by the Kagen construct.

By they way, if you are still experiencing pain while trying to have the buttsecks then you should considering trying to find a partner.
Posted by quarterexchange 6 years ago
quarterexchange
It's nearly impossible to argue against homosexuality, it's like arguing against the weather.
Posted by sing_along 6 years ago
sing_along
Hey Cliff,

[the resolution] is
"Homosexuality is wrong and disgusting"

the condition is:
"but homosexuals should not be discriminated against on a public basis".

-Just in case your mind can't comprehend single sentences that convey double statements.

BTW, there's no difference between "ghays" and "gays" is there?
Posted by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
"I will probably lose this debate [YES] due to overwhelming general pre-conceived disagreement [NO], but my position is clear [NO]:

Homosexuality is wrong and disgusting[Even lesbians?], but homosexuals should not be discriminated against on a public basis [What was the resolution again]."

By the way, not only the ghays have the buttseks.
Posted by socialpinko 6 years ago
socialpinko
I'm really hoping my opponent doesn't forfeit. Now I know how my opponents felt when I first joined DDO. 0_0
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Cliff.Stamp 6 years ago
Cliff.Stamp
sing_alongsocialpinkoTied
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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: For shame Pro, so much potential and it was all wasted and Con moves one step closer to dominating the leader board.
Vote Placed by quarterexchange 6 years ago
quarterexchange
sing_alongsocialpinkoTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Too many to type.
Vote Placed by innomen 6 years ago
innomen
sing_alongsocialpinkoTied
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 Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: Obvious win for con.