The Instigator
Lordgrae
Pro (for)
Losing
7 Points
The Contender
Grandbudda
Con (against)
Winning
14 Points

Homosexuality provides a benefit to modern society.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+4
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 4 votes the winner is...
Grandbudda
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/19/2014 Category: Health
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,846 times Debate No: 44242
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (19)
Votes (4)

 

Lordgrae

Pro

Okay, so here is how the argument will go.

As Pro I will argue that homosexuality provides a benefit to society. To make this a shared BoP, Con must argue that homosexuality is harmful to society. If neither side is able to prove his/her/its position, then that will result in a tie.

Here are some premises not accepted by Pro, so please do not use these as arguments.

The afterlife
A theistic deity
The bible

Any attempt to use these as sources or arguments will result in a complete loss for that specific argument and must be discounted by potential voters.

Round 1 is for acceptance
Round 2 is for opening arguments
Round 3 rebuttals and new arguments
Round 4 rebuttals and conclusions (No new arguments may be posted)
Grandbudda

Con

I will be happy to take the contrary for this argument. Homosexuality does harm society and not benefit it per se. I will argue vehemently on civil, religious and natural law grounds. I welcome a well thought out and factual based exchange and though I realize most will agree with my opponent I'm hopeful that I will convert many to my side of the argument.
Debate Round No. 1
Lordgrae

Pro

Since this is shared burden of proof, I will begin my arguments.

I shall use the figure of 1.7%-5% to represent the number of adult homosexuals in the US (discounting Wash DC, because that, being a district entirely urban is an outlier of 10%[0]), and will apply at most an estimate of 8-9% to include for people who are closeted. (Note that these numbers also include transsexuals and bisexuals)

1. Overpopulation and reproduction

I know as surely all of you know, that there is a big overpopulation crisis. There are currently 7.1 billion people in the world [1] and rising exponentially [2]. Now, regardless of whether you think that our current population crisis is really a problem, at some point, our population will rise above the resources we are able to produce. As the limiting factors of war, disease and lack of other resources decline in ability to effect our population, we will eventually hit a breaking point. I'm sure you know that gay sex does not reproduce under normal circumstances. Thus, homosexuals will not contribute to overpopulation, because they themselves will not produce a significant number of children. (Yes I know that for women there is invitro-fertilization and other such methods, but not everyone does that) Now, do I believe that a 8% gay population will single-handedly stop exponential population growth? No. That would be unreasonable. However, you must admit that they are somewhat helping to curb the rampant population growth, and 8% of people not reproducing is not a small amount. The gay population will be able, by there mere existence, to somewhat stifle population growth, without destroying reproduction altogether, providing a small overall benefit to society.

2. Adoption

Now, if you look at the number of gay couples with children, you can see that, while not the majority, a whopping 21% of children being raised by same sex couples are either step-children to one of them, or they are adopted. Compared to the 4-5.5 percent for straight couples (married and unmarried respectively)[3]. Now, why is adopting children important? If you look at some of the statistics, a large number of these people become involved in crime and drugs or prostitution. These people in orphanages are also more likely to commit suicide [4].

3. Liberalism and sexual repression

People look at sex as something dirty, to not be discussed in public, and how sex should not be discussed in schools. Homosexuality has drawn attention to the issues of sex and sexuality, which need to be discussed and evaluated. STD rates being what they are, it is important to make sure that people know about safe sex. The topic of homosexuality will bring about more discussion on prevention of STDs and access to testing for STDs.

The fear tactic does not work for sex and drugs. [5] Knowledge can do only so much, but an open discussion, and not shoving these things under the mattress will lead to more of a recognition of the problems, and a better way of handling solutions to these problems. By understanding of human sexuality, we will try tactics that work. By not attempting to suppress sexuality, straight or gay, we can have safer sex, and promiscuous people can get told to get more frequent checkups for STD's.

[0] http://en.wikipedia.org... (Yeah I know you're not supposed to use Wikipedia. Whatever. There isn't any potential bias in this one)
[1] http://www.census.gov...
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[3] http://www.lifelongadoptions.com...
[4] http://skywardjourney.wordpress.com...
[5] http://rhrealitycheck.org...
Grandbudda

Con

Opening Argument

Lets begin by looking at some of the repercussions of the homosexual lifestyle on the physiological wellbeing of society. As attested and validated by decades of medical research, all sorts of sexually transmitted diseases and other forms of malignant cancers and psychiatric disorders increase dramatically in societies where homosexuality is allowed to thrive. The AIDS pandemic is a classic example of a disease that originated with homosexuals and continues to thrive among men who have sex with other men. Its prevalence remains disproportionately much higher in homosexuals compared to heterosexuals.
In the United States for example, medical data has identified homosexual activity among males as by far, the largest single source of HIV infection in the general population. In a dramatic admission in early 2009, homosexual activist Matt Foreman, executive director of the United States National Gay and Lesbian Task Force shocked fellow homosexuals by declaring, "HIV is a gay disease." While addressing the National Conference on Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender Equality in Detroit, Michigan, Foremen stunned the assembly by stating: "With 70 percent of the people in this country living with HIV being gay or bi-sexual, we cannot deny that HIV is a gay disease. We have to own that and face up to that."

In study after study, family breakdown is linked to an increase in violent crime, youth crime, teen pregnancy, welfare dependency and child poverty. Marriage has already been weakened in our society by promiscuous heterosexual activity. The out-of-wedlock childbirth rate is at a historically high level, while the divorce rate remains unacceptably high. "Legalization of gay marriage will further undermine an institution that is essential to the well-being of children and our society. Do we need to confuse future generations of Americans even more about the role and importance of an institution that is so critical to the stability of our country?" (Taken from a USA Today opinion article)

"The weakening of the institution of marriage has already had too high a social cost. Radically redefining marriage will simply serve to intensify the assault on marriage and the American family." (Boston.com)

In its relentless drive to overthrow the moral code that has guided Western civilization since Constantine, the homosexual lobby has moved from triumph to triumph in a few years. And what would constitute total victory for "gay values" over traditional values?
If the tenets of the 'gay-rights' movement are true, the Torah and New Testament are wrong, Christianity has been wrong since the time of St. Paul, Aquinas and Augustine were wrong, and the moral edifice by which men in the West have lived for 2,000 years was built on bigotry, prejudice and lies.

The issue is simply this. The family is one man married to one woman, period. And to say, as Presidential candidates are saying, one is saying I'm for the Federal Marriage Amendment, we say great. Another says I'm against same-sex marriage, but I'm against a federal marriage amendment, that's like saying 150 years ago, 'I'm opposed to slavery, but if my neighbor wants to own one, that's all right.' You're either going to take your stand to support the family, the 6,000-year historic family, one man married to one woman, or you're not going to take it, and I think the American people, will be greatly impressed by how political candidates move on that issue.
(From the July 13 broadcast of The Tavis Smiley Show)

Focus on the Family founder and chairman James C. Dobson predicted on his radio program that allowing same-sex marriage in the United States would lead to "group marriage," "marriage between daddies and little girls," or "marriage between a man and his donkey."
Dobson called this vision of the future "more or less a prophecy," though, he stressed, not a "divine prophecy, but a prediction." He said that his specific examples, as well as "anything allegedly linked to civil rights," will be "doable, and the legal underpinnings for marriage will have been destroyed. Now I'm not saying that incest or beastiality will become legal although they can make an argument for them. If they are not hurting anyone and the relationship is consensual should we allow polygamy? This is a very slippery slope that homosexuality can open a pandora box of abhorrent behavior.

A study on childhood and adolescent molestation also found rates of homosexual sexual abuse reported by homosexual adults to be almost 7 times higher for homosexual men, and 22 times higher for homosexual women, compared to their heterosexual counterparts. This strongly suggests that minors can be sexualised towards homosexuality upon exposure to homosexual stimulus or homosexual abuse. (Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...)
Statistics like this affirmatively calls for the law to protect our minors from homosexual stimulus or abuse. This strongly supports the cause for the law to continue to draw a distinction between heterosexual sex and homosexual sex.

Finally, the hard truth is, homosexuality cannot lay claim to its biological purpose, i.e. procreation, the way heterosexuality can. In this, heterosexuality has a legitimacy which homosexuality cannot lay claim to, and the law is obliged to distinguish this fundamental difference. If we produce no children, our society will die. There won't be enough people to support the infrastructure, medical needs, economic development, etc. That is a fact. So, common sense would tell us that homosexuality is a danger to society since it cannot produce children to further the society.

Homosexuality is a behavior that is based, as many claim, on an orientation. What about other sexual orientations such as pedophilia, voyeurism, necrophilia, bestiality, polygamy, incest, exhibitionism, fetishes, frotterism, masochism, sadism, etc.? The arguments for and against these other "orientations" are many and we won't go into them here. But, who is to say that those who fall into these sexual categories won't use the homosexual agenda's orientation argument as a basis to further their own causes? If you think this is a ridiculous idea, then you are not aware of the fact that pedophiles are doing just that.

So, is homosexuality dangerous to society? The facts show that it is. We have to ask, why then would it be promoted so heavily when it is so harmful? The only answer I can come up with is that the politically correct don't care about the facts. Instead, they want their agenda promoted. They want their sexual freedom without responsibility. They, like so many tyrants in history, want to force their minority opinion on the majority to satisfy their own appetites.

Sources:
(1) Academia.edu
(2) Umich.edu
(3) USA Today
(4 ) Boston.com
(5) media matters.org
(6) ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Debate Round No. 2
Lordgrae

Pro

So, let's go into refutations now. I apologize that I posted this late, but I had to study for my mid-year exams. If you finish your argument on Saturday, I should be able to get my round 3 up before the end of Sunday.

Now, you state that homosexuality shows higher numbers in the AIDS community. This is irrefutable true. However, similar, though slightly smaller numbers are found in the black community.

"Black/African American men and women were also highly affected and were estimated to have an HIV incidence rate that was almost 8 times as high as the incidence rate among whites."[1]

Now, we must ask ourselves why we see these numbers. Black people are more often part of the urban lower class, and as a result, have less access to condoms, and other such safe sex measures, as well as decreased availability of clinics and diagnosing. As I showed earlier, cities tend to have higher gay populations as well. In general, city populations are more promiscuous. Another factor which might cause homosexuals to see an increase in HIV infections is lack of education, being shunned by society, and a lack of clinics. People who have promiscuous gay sex do not always know to use a condom, because pregnancy is not an issue. Education can easily solve this problem. A lack of information being given about HIV to gay and bisexual men, as well as a lack of support to ensure that higher risk populations get tested more often to prevent spreading is severely lacking. The reasons that we have this problem, is because people do not accept homosexuality. However, the trend is changing, and the younger population supports homosexuality more and more. This will become less of a problem in the future, as long as we make sure that people know to get themselves regularly checked.

It is interesting to note that women, who already have a smaller infection rate then men (due to less unprotected sex and less promiscuity. Men have 4.3 times more aids) 84% of the infections were from heterosexual contact, and still more were from unclean drug injections. [2] This means that Lesbians (who are including in the discussion of homosexuality) show a smaller infection rate for AIDS then any gender, race or orientation group.

I would like to note that his second paragraph is taken from a journalist opinion article, and should not be regarded as a source for even anecdotal evidence.

"The out-of-wedlock childbirth rate is at a historically high level, "

We must look at why this is. Is it because people are simply not going to get the marriage certificate, or because some are unable, or because they do not wish to. It does not necessarily mean that these children are not growing up in two parent homes.

""Legalization of gay marriage will further undermine an institution that is essential to the well-being of children and our society."

I fail to see how it will do that. You cannot simply make a claim. This is not from a reliable, unbiased, or even informed source. If this is your 'appeal to authority' argument, I would suggest a better authority.

""The weakening of the institution of marriage has already had too high a social cost. Radically redefining marriage will simply serve to intensify the assault on marriage and the American family." "

This is again from another source that simply does not know what they are talking about. There is nothing that you have here to back up this claim. The weakening of the institution of marriage is a sign of a progressive country with freedom. You know why we have a high divorce rate? Because people aren't afraid of divorcing, people are more educated and can support themselves financially, and women have more rights. The places with high divorce rates are free countries like Canada and Sweden, while those with low divorce rates are usually Christian or Islamic or Hindu fundamentalist nations or regions, like some parts of India, Pakistan, Yemen and various unstable African and Middle Eastern nations. While divorce itself is not necessarily good, it is a sign of a free society, and it is unconnected to homosexuality. I will admit that people who admit that they are gay later in life might divorce, and slightly increase divorce, but not in any significant matter, and this can be more attributed to the fault of people who do not accept homosexuality.

You mention the bible. I don't mean to be offensive, but you probably shouldn't take the bible literally for your morals.

"Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; "[3]

Jesus condones slavery. Maybe you shouldn't say that the breakdown of biblical morals is bad.

"Focus on the Family founder and chairman James C. Dobson predicted on his radio program that allowing same-sex marriage in the United States would lead to "group marriage," "marriage between daddies and little girls," or "marriage between a man and his donkey.""

The slippery slope idea only works if there is no defined line of where to stop. We have a line. It is called consent. Children cannot fully give consent, neither can drunk or high people, and neither can animals. Adults can though.

Another thing wrong with this is that you use James Dobson. James Dobson has in the past claimed that a group promoting tolerance and understanding, especially on racial issues, were trying to get kids to be gay. He is not the most rational person to take sources from. [4] I understand that such harmless sounding names like 'focus on the family' can sound like they are good and non-biased, but it often covers up an agenda-laden bias.

"Homosexuality is a behavior that is based, as many claim, on an orientation. What about other sexual orientations such as pedophilia, voyeurism, necrophilia, bestiality, polygamy, incest, exhibitionism, fetishes, frotterism, masochism, sadism, etc.? The arguments for and against these other "orientations" are many and we won't go into them here. "

well, many of these involve something that conflicts with consent. And without consent, it is molestation or rape.

I think that you as well have an agenda going into this. You have an agenda to promote the bible and Christianity. I am actually gay, so I suppose I have an agenda as well.

"force their minority opinion on the majority to satisfy their own appetites."

How does gay marriage force the minority opinion on the majority? Telling people in schools that gay is okay doesn't stop the parents from instilling it before the schools get to it. It doesn't stop anything. And schools should be a safe place for everyone. And how does gay marriage enforce the minority opinion on the majority anyway? You don't have to have a gay marriage. Rather, you are enforcing the majority opinion to discriminate against the minority opinion.

[1] http://www.cdc.gov...
[2] http://www.cdc.gov...
[3] http://biblehub.com...
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...
Grandbudda

Con

Con
I'd like to begin by wishing you good luck on your mid terms, I know this can be a trying time. Also I want to make something very clear, I'm not anti gay and I'm not an intolerant person. However I do object strenuously to gay marriage and think that we shouldn't have to redefine after thousands of years what marriage is or is not. But marriage is and should be between one man and one woman period. A fervent minority shouldn't ask that a fervent majority accept a new definition of marriage. I'm in favor and believe that most rights of traditional marriage are obtained through civil unions and those are lawful and even though some don't like it, we'll get used to it.

I find that your comparison of AIDS in the black community to be quite racist in a d of itself. I want to vehemently disassociate myself with any of your accusation that blacks have "8 times as high as the incidence rate among whites." This isn't exactly correct, although its higher not because they are ad you say "lower class and as a result, have less access to condoms, and other such safe sex measures." Let's stay on topic because this is not black and white but rather homosexual vs. heterosexual. Actually it's whether homosexual lifestyle ads value to society. Well clearly concerning AIDs it doesn't, actually it hurts society at least in this narrow context.

Then you go on to discussing that homosexuals are somehow not well educated saying: " homosexuals to see an increase in HIV infections is lack of education, being shunned by society, and a lack of clinics." That is an untrue statement unless you're making the argument that underage gay boys are being victimized by gay men, in that case I agree. As I've said previously a study on childhood and adolescent molestation also found rates of homosexual sexual abuse reported by homosexual adults to be almost 7 times higher for homosexual men, and 22 times higher for homosexual women, compared to their heterosexual counterparts. This strongly suggests that minors can be sexualised towards homosexuality upon exposure to homosexual stimulus or homosexual abuse. (Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov......) Then my opponent actually has the audacity to blame heterosexuals by saying: "The reasons that we have this problem, is because people do not accept homosexuality." So its heterosexuals fault because they don't accept homosexuality and that's why AIDS is a problem. We have a problem of recognizing anatomy exits and entrances and whether I accept you as you say, has no bearing on your responsibility to be accountable for you actions. I find that my reading of the CDC reports come up with different figures than yours, but that's ok I guess we will let the readers decide on the AIDS issue.

I stand by my statement that: ""Legalization of gay marriage will further undermine an institution that is essential to the well-being of children and our society." My opponent fails to see how this is true and says that I can't make this claim. It's simply a biological fact that children are better served with all things being equal in a loving environment with a father and a mother. Not having to deal with explaining why they don't have a mother and father. Not being confused by having to understand mature concepts long before they're ready. I also contend that: "The weakening of the institution of marriage has already had too high a social cost. Radically redefining marriage will simply serve to intensify the assault on marriage and the American family." My opponent again suggests that my sources are flawed. It seems that if my opponent doesn't like the answers he gets he just continues to look for a source that will give him his outcome. He just states that my source "simply does not know what they are talking about", thats not even an argument but more sour grapes.

My opponent reasons that the "weakening of the institution of marriage is a sign of a progressive country with freedom." So are we to believe now that married people who stay married are less free? It's a foolish statement without basis. My opponent uses a quote from the Bible to bring into this argument, but I will refrain from direct quotes attributed to Jesus that marriage is between one man and one woman. I really didn't want religion to be a focus of this debate, but you have accused my lord and savior Jesus Christ of condoning slavery because you don't understand what he meant by his words. I understand that you don't recognize Christianity and I don't care because ill still pray for you. What I did say and will repeat here is: "In its relentless drive to overthrow the moral code that has guided Western civilization since Constantine, the homosexual lobby has moved from triumph to triumph in a few years. And what would constitute total victory for "gay values" over traditional values? If the tenets of the 'gay-rights' movement are true, the Torah and New Testament are wrong, Christianity has been wrong since the time of St. Paul, Aquinas and Augustine were wrong, and the moral edifice by which men in the West have lived for 2,000 years was built on bigotry, prejudice and lies."

My opponent in his quest for his idea of social justice says: "The slippery slope idea only works if there is no defined line of where to stop. We have a line. It is called consent." I guess then its alright for a brother and sister to marry. If they love each other and consent, so incest is fine with him, but not with the sane of mind. I suppose that if one man wants to have multiple wives that old be alright too. Or if a man wants multiple men to be married that would be ok too, after all they are adults and give consent. Well incest and polygamy are an abomination as much as gay marriage for those of us who aren't mentally disturbed. My opponent doesn't like Dr. James Dobson and his Focus on Family group because they're intolerant. I wouldn't be calling the kettle black if I were him. Why is Dobson wrong you ask, it's because he disagrees with my opponent. Like I said before if you disagree with my opponent you're a bigot and intolerant.

My opponent quoted me also saying: "Homosexuality is a behavior that is based, as many claim, on an orientation. What about other sexual orientations such as pedophilia, voyeurism, necrophilia, bestiality, polygamy, incest, exhibitionism, fetishes, frotterism, masochism, sadism, etc.? The arguments for and against these other "orientations" are many and we won't go into them here. " He then accuses me of having an agenda going into this, guess what I do! My agenda isn't however as he says to "promote the bible and Christianity." My agenda is simply that gay marriage not be allowed and that homosexuals be content with civil unions or partnerships. I'm sorry that the tone of he debate seems so biting, I don't wish to be cruel but I feel like traditional marriage is under attack and so I'm fighting back.

According to the CDC homosexual sex carries great risk for both participants. Without getting too graphic it involves the rectum and its ability to withstand abuse. The cdc reports that this causes "massive immunological disruptions in the blood system, making the person at much greater risk for infection." It's no wonder that homosexuals are 245% more apt to report 2 or more sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) at a time, than heterosexuals.
The consequences of this behavior is magnified when one looks at the number of partners the average homosexual has in his/her lifetime. Most homosexual sex is performed with strangers. 70% admitting to having sex only once with over half of their partners. The average Homosexual has had 300 to 500 partners during a lifetime. 28% have performed sodomy on over 1000 partners. Only 2% have had monogamous relationships, and those are defined as lasting anywhere between one and five years.

Contrary to media propaganda, these practices are not always taking place "behind closed doors", in the privacy of one's own bedroom. According to The Gay Report, a homosexual magazine; the most frequented places to practice homosexual behavior are: public restrooms; bus stations, service stations,
public libraries, rest stops, "health clubs" where groups gather to watch others engage in sodomy or go to private booths for themselves; "gay bars" and night clubs; street corners where they "cruise" for others, "glory holes" (circular holes cut out of partitions between stalls in public restrooms allowing anonymous oral sodomy with the person in the next stall); pornographic bookstores, peep shows, movie houses, public parks where groups gather in the bushes; beaches and public baths. I apologize for the rather graphic description but believe me I've tamed it down quite a bit. I can't imagine that the homosexual lifestyle is a benefit to society at all.

Many say that pedophilia and obscene behavior are "unacceptable" in the homosexual and heterosexual communities, and would never become "acceptable". The evidence proves otherwise:
Prior to a 1970 American Psychiatric Association convention in San Francisco, homosexuality was listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders as a `mental illness'. The APA conventions had been disrupted by angry homosexuals for years prior to 1970, however that year's location afforded them the ability to make the necessary changes to the `status' of their lifestyle. Through harassment and intimidation they succeeded in "gagging" any opposition from the APA members. By 1972 they had accomplished their goal and were no longer labeled as a "mental illness". From that point on, the top "sex researchers" of America began the RE-educating of America with the "sexual orientation" arguments. Today, children are being taught in government controlled schools that homosexuality is "just an alternative lifestyle".

Twenty years from 1972 and the same arguments are beginning to roll in concerning pedophilia. The same sex researchers (Dr. John Money/Johns Hopkins University, Dr. John DeCecco/Editor, Journal on Homosexuality - Dr. Mary Calderon/SIECUS) are saying that pedophilia is not necessarily damaging, so long as force is not used. PAIDIKA, Journal of Pedophilia, 4/91 stated, "If I were to see the case of a boy aged 10 or 11 who's intensely, erotically attracted toward a man in his 20s or 30s, if the relationship is totally mutual, and the bonding is genuinely totally mutual, then I would not call it pathological in any way." 10 of the 24 members of PAIDIKA's editorial board are also on the board of JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY. Bill Andriette, Editor of the NAMBLA Bulletin (North American Man-Boy Love Association) said, "If you look at the variation of sexuality of one individual and one culture, between different cultures, you see that the range of forms of sexual expression is just too varied to simply divvy up the map by saying "gay & straight".

My opponent has failed to demonstrate his point as far as raising those circumstances that provide homosexuality benefits society. He is a man in search of proof to offer for his case. He has multiple reasons for objecting to my side but the debate is about benefits to society. He sights population control as a benefit but I think we can do without it. I'm sorry but I don't see how the homosexual lifestyle can be construed to benefit society. So I implore you to answer the question before us in the contrary.
Debate Round No. 3
Lordgrae

Pro

" But marriage is and should be between one man and one woman period. A fervent minority shouldn't ask that a fervent majority accept a new definition of marriage. "

You do not have to accept gay marriage, nor would a gay marriage bill require you to accept gay marriage yourself. Rather, by not having gay marriage you are forcing your beliefs in traditional marriage upon others. Aside from that, if you go back to just a little bit before the rise of the Romans, and even around that time, marriage might include a couple slave-girls on the side, or multiple wives and/or concubines. Single and long-term marriage is a fairly recent invention of Western Culture. Also, many important features, as well as the ease of getting it, is not anywhere close to the equal of marriage.

"
I find that your comparison of AIDS in the black community to be quite racist in a d of itself. I want to vehemently disassociate myself with any of your accusation that blacks have "8 times as high as the incidence rate among whites." This isn't exactly correct, although its higher not because they are ad you say "lower class and as a result, have less access to condoms, and other such safe sex measures." "

I apologize if I came off racist. Perhaps I failed to properly explain myself.

But it is true. African Americans have had significantly less opportunities in society, and are overrepresented in anything that has to do with poverty as a result. I do not like it, but I was simply saying that the causal factors can be attributed to lack of society support, and not attributed to homosexuality. If people were more accepting of homosexuality and more supportive, then we would see much lower rates.

Perhaps I also misexplained, or you misunderstood education. I meant, that there is a lack of information going around about how STD's can still spread even by non-vaginal intercourse. People think they are safe, both heterosexual and straight, simply because they have no impregnation to fear.

Well, there is a problem with abuse towards people of the same gender. It is often theorized that this happens because A. someone has suppressed their own sexuality, and has made this into an outlet B. someone is truly attracted to children, C. someone is a narcissist and the child looks like them when they were young, or D. they are in a position of power and hierarchy and they are expressing their dominance, and it simply happens that children of the same gender is the children they have the most access to.

Women and general are more often reported as being sexually abused in general, so it is not much of a surprise that that number would be harmful.

Now, to address your contention that children can be 'sexualized'. The causal factors of homosexuality are completely irrelevant. Whether it is caused by a trauma or by genetic and hormone factors is completely irrelevant. Yes we should not support rape and molestation, but it has absolutely no bearing on whether homosexuality should be accepted or the resolution.

" So its heterosexuals fault because they don't accept homosexuality and that's why AIDS is a problem. We have a problem of recognizing anatomy exits and entrances and whether I accept you as you say, has no bearing on your responsibility to be accountable for you actions. I find that my reading of the CDC reports come up with different figures than yours, but that's ok I guess we will let the readers decide on the AIDS issue."

We were both reading on the same CDC reports. I just happened to look at their general report on both race, gender and sexuality, and you only looked at sexuality. If you looked at gender and sexuality, you would see that it is men that have more incidences of AIDS, and the lesbian population, which are included with homosexuals, make up a very small percentage of AIDS population. And yes it is the general populations fault. Homosexuality can be beneficial for population control and adoption, but the negatives are mostly caused by a lack of acceptance. If we accept homosexuality, a lot of the causal factors for problems like AIDS and depression and suicide will show up significantly less.

"So are we to believe now that married people who stay married are less free?"

No. But not everyone wants to stay married their whole lives. Sometimes you don't love the person anymore. Sometimes your marriage was a green card sham. Sometimes your spouse is a gold-digger. Sometimes your relationship was simply for the children. You cannot know everyone's circumstances. In a perfect world, people would get married for love, and they would love each other until the day they die. However, this is not the case for a large number of marriages. A truly free society should be able to marry anyone capable of true consent (as in, adult humans) and leave them if they do not love them anymore, or the purpose of the marriage is no more. So although the divorce rate is not ideal, although homosexuality is in no way related to the divorce rate (unless you factor in people who divorce after coming out, but that is not significant, and the fault of those who do not let them come out at a younger age), is a sign of a more free society. Countries with low divorce rates are more often ruled by religion, and have harsh social policies and less technology, wealth, and personal freedoms.

"If they love each other and consent, so incest is fine with him, but not with the sane of mind. I suppose that if one man wants to have multiple wives that old be alright too. Or if a man wants multiple men to be married that would be ok too, after all they are adults and give consent. Well incest and polygamy are an abomination as much as gay marriage for those of us who aren't mentally disturbed."

You have falsely assumed that these things are assumed to be wrong. My question is, why should they be just considered wrong because we live in a Western country that had that culture? I think incest is wrong for some other reasons, mostly because of genetic defects, and perhaps simply my inherent Western distaste, but I think that Polygamy, Bigamy and Incest should receive more of a discussion than just submitting to our heritage.

I encourage everyone to research Mr. James Dobson and his views. I think you will find that he is fairly crazy.

."Prior to a 1970 American Psychiatric Association convention in San Francisco, homosexuality was listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric Disorders as a `mental illness'. The APA conventions had been disrupted by angry homosexuals for years prior to 1970, however that year's location afforded them the ability to make the necessary changes to the `status' of their lifestyle. Through harassment and intimidation they succeeded in "gagging" any opposition from the APA members. "

I have a question on this. Why is a prestigious medical academy that is part of one of the fields that is most benefitting in knowledge from recent technology not so afraid of people shouting? Every time they re-update it, they get a bunch of people shouting to change it back. So why don't they? The reason is, they found out something they didn't know before. They were wrong. So they admitted it. Medicine and science have nothing they set out to prove or disprove. And if a specific researcher does, they will be found out, and everything they did will be extensively examined.

"Today, children are being taught in government controlled schools that homosexuality is "just an alternative lifestyle"."

I don't know what your talking about. I have a fairly large GSA in my school, and yet the only thing I have been told, is not to bully people for being gay. That's it.

"If you look at the variation of sexuality of one individual and one culture, between different cultures, you see that the range of forms of sexual expression is just too varied to simply divvy up the map by saying "gay & straight"."

Yes this is true.

I already stated the benefits of adoption and population control.
Grandbudda

Con

Con - homosexuality is a benefit to modern society.

I'd like to thank my opponent for a spirited and thoughtful debate, but I feel that he has failed in his burden if proof. I urge the readers to vote against the proposition based upon the arguments previously spelled out and this final summation.

Most religions consider homosexuality a sin. Virtually every religion in the world, including the major ones in this country, consider homosexuality unacceptable. It is offensive and a swipe to the religious freedom of the majority to have to recognize a relationship they consider sinful. The legal system in the United States evolved out of the laws contained in the Bible. We shouldn't go even farther to tear down those laws. Gay marriage would further weaken the definition and respect for the institution of marriage. The 50 percent divorce rate has already weakened the definition of marriage. We shouldn't be taking further steps to define what marriage is. A law allowing gay marriage would increase the number of joke or non-serious marriages, such as a couple of friends who want to save on taxes. Marriage is the most sacred institution in this country, and every society considers it the joining of a man and a woman. It makes biological sense since only a man and woman can pro-create.

It would further weaken the traditional family values essential to our society. The building blocks of our society and the thing that makes it strong is the traditional family of man, woman, and children. It is what has sustained us through world wars, terrorist attacks, a Great Depressions and Recessions and numerous other challenges over the centuries. While friends & lovers come and go, your family is always there. The main reason our culture and values have started to crumble is the weakening of families. Introducing another form of "family" would only make the situation worse. It could provide a slippery slope in the legality of marriage (e.g. having multiple wives or marrying an animal could be next). Gay rights activists claim that these marriages should be allowed because it doesn't hurt anyone, but it could start a chain reaction that destroys the whole idea of marriage. If someone wants to marry his dog, why shouldn't he be able to? What if someone wants to marry their brother or parent? What if someone wants to have 10 wives? If these options sound absurd, remember that all it takes is a few activist judges to use the statute to open the door. It doesn't matter if 95 percent of the population disagrees with the policy, one judge can interpret the case the way he or she wants to impose a law on everyone. Do you remember how two judges in California recently declared the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional? If the decision hadn't been overturned, it would have prevented millions of children from being able to say the pledge every morning, despite the fact that 95+ percent of Americans disagreed with the decision.

It confuses children about gender roles and expectations of society, and only a man & woman can pro-create. Children learn about expectations and gender roles from society. It's difficult to teach the importance and traditions of the family when such confusion is thrust upon them. Only a man and woman can bear children, and for thousands of years, a man & woman headed household has carried generations of people through life. The gay lifestyle is not something to be encouraged, as a lot of research shows it leads to a much lower life expectancy, psychological disorders, and other problems. Studies show that homosexuals, for a variety of reasons, have life expectancies of approximately 20 years less than the rest of the population.

The reasons that homosexual lifestyles don't benefit society are many and I feel that my position has been spelled out directly and frankly. Let me further state that I have friends and family who engage in that lifestyle. While I disagree with their lifestyle I continue to love and respect them, always hopeful that they will change their ways. In any case I certainly hope that we continue to remain in one another's lives.
Debate Round No. 4
19 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GWL-CPA 3 years ago
GWL-CPA
RFD " Reasons for Decision " Part I

I gave all points to Con except the point for Spelling and Grammar that I called a tie. By reasons for the giving the other points to Con are stated below.

I do take exception to Pro being able to state these rules:

"Here are some premises not accepted by Pro, so please do not use these as arguments.

The afterlife
A theistic deity
The bible

Any attempt to use these as sources or arguments will result in a complete loss for that specific argument and must be discounted by potential voters."

I am an atheist and believe the Bible was written by ordinary men based on observations of life, which included seeing diseases, which were in many cases caused by living unhealthy life styles, e.g., homosexuality, the Jewish rules for the preparation of food, "halakha" or kosher.

"Paul the Apostle, inspired by God, said in Romans 1:27:

Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error, which was due."

"Garth Kant of WND " WorldNetDaily, writes of another killer disease in addition to HIV AIDS that is striking homosexuals. He says:

"Gay" sex is becoming even more dangerous.

Health officials are warning sexually active "gay" men about an outbreak of potentially deadly bacterial meningitis in Los Angeles and New York."
http://www.holybibleprophecy.org...
Posted by GWL-CPA 3 years ago
GWL-CPA
RFD " Reasons for Decision " Part II

Not sure what "the afterlife" has to do with anything.

There is at least one argument or reality that is not based on religious beliefs or the Bible or the afterlife. It is called Evolution.

Evolution did not create a homosexual species. For the higher life forms, evolution created a female with special body parts and eggs for having babies, and a man, with equipment that fits perfectly inside a woman where man ejaculate a fluid that contains sperm that swim up the female"s canal to fertilize the egg and then a baby is produce and in about 9 months a new human is born. That is the sole purpose of man and woman from an evolutionary perspective.

However, that argument was not mentioned directly by Con, but she does mention that marriage is essential to the well-being of children and our society and that has been proven by recent studies that all gays reject because these new studies shows that gays are not the proper role models for children; and, many gay parents take sexual advantage of their children. This new study by Mark Regnerus is the biggest study done so far and complete destroys all the old studies that say gay parents are fine, many of those old studies were written by gays.

Mark Regnerus, Sociologist and Author
http://www.markregnerus.com...

How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex
relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study
Mark Regnerus
http://www.markregnerus.com...

Con has also stated many well known facts about the increased rate of HIV and other STDs in the gay community, especially in the black population in the USA. Then you go off on some irrelevant tangent about why blacks have a higher rate of HIV.

Then you make an another totally unsupported statement?

"The reasons that we have this problem, is because people do not accept homosexuality."

Really?
Posted by GWL-CPA 3 years ago
GWL-CPA
RFD " Reasons for Decision " Part III

Same sex marriage was legalized in Amsterdam on April 1, 2001, about 13 years ago; however the rate of HIV and other STDS, and unprotected anal sex keep increasing.

"HIV incidence increasing among gay men in Amsterdam"

"Accompanying these incidence trends were changes in HIV risk behaviour. Over three-quarters of men reported recent unprotected anal sex in 1984, but this had fallen to 33% in 1988, but this had increased to 38% by the end of 1995, and by the end 2009 the proportion of men reporting unprotected anal sex in the previous six months was 55%. This increase was significant."
http://www.aidsmap.com...

Anyway, Con presented much better arguments than Pro.

Pro then attacks Con sources as: "This is not from a reliable, unbiased, or even informed source. If this is your 'appeal to authority' argument, I would suggest a better authority."

This is totally uncalled for and Con"s arguments were not the debate fallacy called "Appeal to Authority.
Posted by GWL-CPA 3 years ago
GWL-CPA
RFD " Reasons for Decision " Part IV

Pro"s source http://www.lifelongadoptions.com... is a pro LGBT site that really doesn"t prove Pro"s point.

"Some people say that children need a mother and a father to raise us; to provide both viewpoints of gender: masculinity, femininity and all the issues those entail. However, there are many who believe that gender does not matter when parenting."

But, this site offers no proof; it only offers opinions.

The source http://skywardjourney.wordpress.com... only proves that there are lots of kids that need to be adopted.

The title of this article is "Orphan Statistics," by Amber G.

It would appear that the author Amber G is a religious person who believes in the Bible, which is opposed to homosexuality because it is an abomination in the eyes of the Lord. Leviticus 18:22, Proverbs 17:15.
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org...

The author, Amber G, states ""I have to believe that God loves every soul."

She cites Psalm 82:3-4 from the Bible:
"Defend the weak and the fatherless;
uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.
4 Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked."
http://www.biblegateway.com...

Amber does not state anywhere in the article that she believes that allowing gays to adopt is a solution to the problem.

So why are you sorting this source as a proof to your argument?

Anyway, all points but Spelling and Grammar go to Con.
Posted by InVinoVeritas 3 years ago
InVinoVeritas
For the record, I agree with Con's position because I believe that homosexuality has a neutral effect on society, not because I think it is a source of problems.

Also, someone should counter-votebomb Hierocles until he actually posts a real RFD.
Posted by Lordgrae 3 years ago
Lordgrae
I probably should have stressed more my argument for liberalism and sexual repression.
Posted by Juan_Pablo 3 years ago
Juan_Pablo
Lordgrae, homosexuality absolutely does provide a benefit to society. It reminds us that the definition we use to define nature are frequently wrong, artificial and misguided. Nature is a much larger world than the tiny definition that many humans have comfortably applied to it. Nature is large, frequently unpredictable, and often defies our expectations!
Posted by Lordgrae 3 years ago
Lordgrae
Quite honestly. It doesn't matter whether homosexuality benefits society. If it doesn't harm society, then it is not wrong. I put up this debate, because I wanted a challenge. I believe in the neutral position, that it neither benefits nor harms society. However, I wanted to see if I could change my mind, or perhaps get people on the other side to come to the middle.
Posted by Lordgrae 3 years ago
Lordgrae
I'm really sorry about how I am delaying putting up round 1. I am doing DDO while studying for midterms and I will be unable to post until later tonight.
Posted by Lordgrae 3 years ago
Lordgrae
It will become interesting if con brings up suicide rates (which I believe is about 50% for gay people in the US, though those numbers are increased because it discounts closeted people who do not kill themselves), which will turn this debate into acceptance of homosexuality vs. not accepting it and the consequences of each.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by GWL-CPA 3 years ago
GWL-CPA
LordgraeGrandbuddaTied
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: See RFD comments in Comments' Section
Vote Placed by InVinoVeritas 3 years ago
InVinoVeritas
LordgraeGrandbuddaTied
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: According to Pro, "the net benefit or harm is what matters" in this debate, not just any single benefit (as I initially assumed when I read the resolution.) Con barely countered some of Pro's points (especially those regarding adoption and overpopulation), but Con brought up some very power-packed, controversial claims about the adverse effects of homosexuality. I think Pro failed to counter these adequately in order to meet his big BoP, so arguments go to Con. Ties on S&G, sources, and conduct.
Vote Placed by Hierocles 3 years ago
Hierocles
LordgraeGrandbuddaTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Overall Pro had the best arguments and use of evidence.
Vote Placed by GarretKadeDupre 3 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
LordgraeGrandbuddaTied
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:15 
Reasons for voting decision: Con gets sources for referencing not only the CDC, but the APA and the manual of psychiatric disorders. Pro's biggest point was that homosexuality reduces overpopulation, and this was a very weak contention from the start. Con's arguments were more convincing, especially his explanations of the connections between the APA and that pedophile organization. Interestingly, Pro did not contest this point and effectively conceded it. I also liked Con's rhetoric: "We have a problem of recognizing anatomy exits and entrances" made me laugh. Good point. Pro also failed to provide a clear reason for why homosexuality is different from other relationships like incest, etc. I gave Pro conduct because Con annoyed me with his over-reaction to Pro's mention of the objective fact that blacks have a higher incidence of HIV than whites.