The Instigator
HermanGomez95
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
theworldhasgonemad
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Homosexuality.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/26/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 810 times Debate No: 79075
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (6)
Votes (0)

 

HermanGomez95

Pro

Showing deeply anti-homosexual beliefs, my opponent, should they choose to accept the debate, will argue with me about the many facets of homosexuality. To make a long story short, this debate will focus on why homosexuality should, or should not be accepted. While informal, the debate is still very much rooted in the form of substantiated arguments, therefore, the seven point system is still unharmed. Because of it’s nature, the BOP will be determined by each of our assertions, meaning if we argue something as fact, we have to prove it. Beyond that, all arguments are accepted, so long as they remain somewhat civil.


Fair warning: Since I, myself, am a homosexual, I’ll be very firm in my arguments. I’ll attempt to remain as civil as possible, but rest assured that I’ll be quite passionate.


The debate rounds are as follows:

Round 1: Acceptance, Opening Statements
Round 2: Arguments and Rebuttals
Round 3: Arguments and Rebuttals
Round 4: Arguments and Rebuttals
Round 5: Closing Statements


If my opponent agrees to this structure, let them accept the debate and provide their opening statements.


Opening Statements:
Deeply rooted in religious beliefs, homosexuality, as viewed as abominable and perverted, is often subject to harsh and unjustified backlash from unaccepting communities. This much is fact. What I formally aim to argue is that homosexuality should not remain unaccepted in society because all arguments asserting that it harms society are wrong. Using data to support my assertions, I’ll individually look at homosexuality’s effect on marriage, children, and religious freedom to prove why homosexuality does nothing to harm society. I shall also be arguing that homosexuality is something a person is inherently born with, and therefore should not be subject to the harsh backlash it continues to encounter. In other words, I’ll be arguing that, like religion, race, and gender, homosexuality should not be subject to discrimination and/or mistreatment from groups who oppose our beliefs. It is my belief that equality is something the constitution guarantees us. However, that idealism cannot be achieved while people continue to brazenly reject and oppose equality and acceptance for our people. In the following rounds, I’ll submit my own arguments to this thesis, as well as attempt to adequately refute any of my opponents arguments.


With that in mind, let the debate begin!

theworldhasgonemad

Con

I will be arguing that while homosexuality should be accepted, it should not be 'normalised' to protect society. I will be arguing that it will benefit homosexuals to accept known truths and that it is not normal, but by pretending it is normal we are doing little to help homosexuals, and doing a lot to harm society.
Debate Round No. 1
HermanGomez95

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for accepting this debate! I’m quite interested to see where their argument goes.

Since they will be arguing that homosexuality should be accepted but not normalized, I’ll be arguing that homosexuality is normal, in many cases, and that, even if it were not, it is not being normalized by the “Gay Agenda”.

To argue these points, I’ll start off by saying that, according to multiple scientific polls and a plethora of popular opinions, homosexuality is either something we are born with, or something that we develop, but have no control over. This is not me saying that everyone is born gay. No, this is me saying that gay people are born gay in that they are born with the tendencies to be attracted to members of the same-sex. This also stipulates that heterosexuals are born heterosexual and that bisexuals are born bisexual. To go further into this assertion, I’ll provide my own reasoning to this argument as well as supplemental evidence that uses different arguments to get to this same point: People do not choose their orientation. I am arguing this because the lack of choice stipulates that, in some way, homosexuality is naturally occurring and therefore, it is normal.

In order to give a sufficient summary of my beliefs on the matter, I’ve elected to quote myself in an opinion argument I posted for the question “Is being Gay a choice influenced by Society?”

Here is what I said: Let’s look at the facts: attraction is something developed without outside influence. (Hypothetically, someone cannot make another person inherently attracted to something they did not originally find attractive.) Hence, attraction is naturally occurring and cannot be dictated by society. Homosexuality is the sole attraction to someone of the same gender. Since attraction is naturally occurring, homosexuality is also naturally occurring. Now, there are cases in which people assert that society allotted them to be gay and have relations with members of the same sex. This is true. However, the notion that their attraction was a choice is not. Their sudden attraction to someone of the same sex simply means they’ve realized they can find someone attractive. In more specific terms, it means their sexuality has developed further. For someone to say that homosexuality is a choice, they must also concede that heterosexuality is a choice. This suddenly introduces the argument that gays can chose to be straight and straights can chose to be gay. However, nearly all heterosexuals will assert that they cannot be gay because they cannot find it in themselves to be attractive to someone of the same gender. To make a long story short: people can chose to carry out a homosexual act, but cannot chose to be homosexual. Attraction is something developed over time that has nothing to do with the nurture aspect of society. It is something people are inherently born with that develops as they explore their inner being.

While my arguments may not be sufficient in proving my assertion that homosexuality is not a choice, several supporting documents also assert such an idea.

Using the same sources I’ve used before on this topic, here is sufficient data asserting that people do not have a choice in regards to their orientation.

1.) According to livescience.com, “Humans aren't the only species that has same-sex pairings. For instance, female Japanese macaques may sometimes participate in energetic sexual stimulation. Lions, chimpanzees, bison and dolphins have also been spotted in same-sex pairings. And nearly 130 bird species have been observed engaging in sexual activities with same-sex partners.” [1]

2.) Natural World News reports, “Scientists have found even more evidence that sexual orientation is largely determined by genetics, not choice. That can undermine a major argument against the LBGT community that claims that these people are choosing to live unnaturally.”[2]

3.) The Huffington Post states, “We know, from many twin and adoption studies, that sexual preference has a genetic component.” [3]

4.) An article on PinkNews.co.uk mentions, “Scientists have uncovered the strongest evidence yet in the debate of whether people are ‘born gay’.” [4]

5.) And finally, there is the conclusion from the groundbreaking study completed by Psychological Medicine. The abstract states, “Conclusions Results, especially in the context of past studies, support the existence of genes on pericentromeric chromosome 8 and chromosome Xq28 influencing development of male sexual orientation.” [5]

There is no irrefutable evidence that a person is born gay. However, there is also no irrefutable evidence proving the opposite. Yet, as scientific studies continue to evolve, the validity[HG1] of this notion because more and more accepted.

According to Merriam-Webster’s full definition of normal,

Normal is:
1: perpendicular; especially: perpendicular to a tangent at a point of tangency
2a: according with, constituting, or not deviating from a norm, rule, or principle
2b: conforming to a type, standard, or regular pattern
3: occurring naturally <normal immunity>
4a: of, relating to, or characterized by average intelligence or development
4b: free from mental disorder: sane
(There are more definitions listed, however they do not pertain to it’s definition regarding the human condition.) [6]

So, since homosexuality is naturally occurring, it is therefore normal. Hence, it does not need to be normalized. It only needs to be accepted.

I’ll dive into my other arguments when the time comes for me to use them to refute my opponents assertions. Till then, I turn the debate over to my opponent!

Citations:

1. http://www.livescience.com......

2. http://www.natureworldnews.com......

3. http://www.huffingtonpost.com......

4. http://www.pinknews.co.uk......

5. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov......

6. http://www.merriam-webster.com...

theworldhasgonemad

Con

Let me start by refuting your point that anything naturally occurring is normal. Really, all I have to do is come up with one example to prove you wrong. But there are millions. Disease is naturally occurring, people are naturally born with missing limbs. It doesn't make them normal. There are also plenty of 'naturally occurring" sexual and other phenomenon in the animal kingdom, such as rape, incest, eating the young, and even necrophilia (https://en.wikipedia.org...). Clearly, there are many things that occur naturally in life, but it doesn't make them normal, it doesn't make them acceptable, and it doesn't make them right.

The reason why homosexuality is not normal is because of a basic biological truth. Girls have a vagina, and boys have a penis. Yes it really is as simple as that, and I'm sure I don't need a reference for it Nothing will ever change that, and that is the fundamental truth that homosexuals will forever battle psychologically, and never be able to beat, unless they accept it for what it is. Homosexuals know that they can only have sexual intercourse with someone's digestive system, and deep-down they know that there is always going to be something "not quite right" about that.

The next point I will refute is that homosexuality is something you have no control over. Your orientation might be something you have no controls over, but you can still control your homosexuality with your lifestyle choices. Again, all I have to do to prove you wrong is provide one example, and here it is:
http://www.salon.com...
Clearly, living a homosexual lifestyle is a choice and a behaviour, as that example proves, even if orientation isn't a choice.

I don't necessarily agree that living a heterosexual lifestyle is the best choice for all people. But I do believe that the best choice for homosexuals is to accept the known fact that homosexuality is not normal, and deal with it the best way they can without affecting other people. Yes that can include living a homosexaul lifestyle, but no it shouldn't include pretending that homosexuality is normal, because that will have nasty consequences for society that I will get to later. But until you accept the fact that homosexuality is not normal, you will never find peace within yourself because of the basic biological truths.

Finally, to refute your point that "it is not being normalized by the "Gay Agenda"", I will actually point you to the fact that it actually IS the gay agenda. For further reading, please visit:
http://www.massresistance.org...
This book is the basis of gay activism, and the reason for all its success over the last couple of decades. The objective of the activism is to fit into society and be treated as normal people without any prejudice. Gay people don't feel like they are normal, they want to feel normal, and that is the true basis of all activism.
Debate Round No. 2
HermanGomez95

Pro


I’d like to apologize to my opponent for taking so long to post my arguments for this round. I’ll try to be more cordial in the future.


Now, onto my arguments.


Pro raises several decent points about homosexuality being normal. And while I could argue that diseases are not naturally occurring, but caused by mitigating factors, as is malformation in birth, I’ll instead introduce my secondary arguments mentioned in round 1, which focus on homosexuality’s influence on society.


Here’s the way it works: even if homosexual is “abnormal” it does nothing to harm society, and therefore shouldn’t be subject to the backlash it has received. If you look at marriage and parenthood (The two most common arguments used against homosexuality) there is significant data to express why homosexuality has not harmed society.


Let’s look at marriage. I’m not here to explain why gay marriage should have been legalized. I’m not here to explain why gay marriage should remain legal. I’m here to explain that, in the wake of gay marriage being legal, the ramifications have been minute, to non-existent on the opposing side, whereas the backlash from conservatives has been appalling. In simpler terms, gay marriage was legalized, and the sanctity of other’s marriages are still intact. Nothing complex.


In the case of gay adoption, there is little to no conclusive evidence suggesting that homosexual parents harm children any more or less than their heterosexual counterparts. This leads me to assert that homosexuals are just as affective/loving parents as heterosexuals, and do NOTHING, as a collective group, to harm the development of the child.


I’ll continue to discuss these arguments after my opponent gives their rebuttals. Until then, I’d like to use the remaining of my characters to look at my opponents statements from last round.


My opponents first point is “Clearly, there are many things that occur naturally in life, but it doesn't make them normal, it doesn't make them acceptable, and it doesn't make them right.” This has some validity to it. However, it only makes me argue, that even if homosexuality isn’t normal, it doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be acceptable, and it doesn’t mean it is morally wrong.


A particularly erroneous and hearsay statement is that “deep-down they know that there is always going to be something "not quite right" about that.” This is in reference to homosexuals sex practices. It should be ignored because there is no way my opponent could know that homosexuals feels that way. It also does not pertain to the debate, whatsoever.


The next point my opponent makes is, “Your orientation might be something you have no controls over, but you can still control your homosexuality with your lifestyle choices.” What this point essentially states is, you can be gay, but not act gay. Or, you can find members of the same-sex attractive, but not act on those impulses. This is true. However, I must ask what pertinence it has with the debate? People, by nature, have control over all their choices. I’m generally interested in what this point does to refute me or challenge my assertions.


The next thing that my opponent states is, “I don't necessarily agree that living a heterosexual lifestyle is the best choice for all people. But I do believe that the best choice for homosexuals is to accept 1. the known fact that homosexuality is not normal, and deal with it the best way they can 2. without affecting other people. Yes that can include living a homosexual lifestyle, but no it shouldn't include pretending that homosexuality is normal, because 3. that will have nasty consequences for society that I will get to later. But until you accept the fact that homosexuality is not normal, 4. you will never find peace within yourself because of the basic biological truths.”


I’ve taken the liberty to bold and number the statements I find particularly troublesome. Here are my comments on each statements


1. This is not a known fact. But, since you say it is, give me conclusive evidence proving it.


2. This implies that we homosexuals are currently affecting other people. Yes this is true. But for you to post it, there must be a negative connotation. So, please go into this.


3. This statement needs to be backed up. I understand you said you’ll do so later… I just wanted to reaffirm the position.


4. This, again, is hearsay that has not basis because my opponent does not actually have a homosexual mind, and therefore does not know if we find peace within ourselves. Therefore, I urge you to ignore it.


The last point I’d like to argue is this:


“Finally, to refute your point that "it is not being normalized by the "Gay Agenda"", I will actually point you to the fact that it 1. actually IS the gay agenda. For further reading, please visit:http://www.massresistance.org......


2. This book is the basis of gay activism, and the reason for all its success over the last couple of decades. The objective of the activism is to fit into society and be treated as normal people without any prejudice. 3. Gay people don't feel like they are normal, they want to feel normal, and that is the true basis of all activism.”


Once again I’ve outlined specific areas I have problems with.


1. This comment asserts that, a.) there is a gay agenda, and b.) that the gay agenda is to be normalized. My arguments against this are, 1.) If there is a gay agenda, it’s not normalizing our behavior…it’s for others to accept our behavior. 2.) In order to prove this point, you must prove there is a gay agenda. I’m afraid you’ll have a hard time doing so, because gay activism leads to multiple surfaces that do not all stem into normalization.


2. HOW IS THIS BOOK THE BASIS OF GAY ACTIVISM IF GAY ACTIVISM STARTED NEARLY 20 YEARS BEFORE THE BOOK WAS PUBLISHED? Also, how is this book the primary reason for all of our success. The statement you’ve just made requires proof.


3. Once again my opponent has taken the liberty of speaking for ALL gay people, when in fact, many of us do feel normal, or, if we don’t we don’t necessarily want to be normal.



To conclude my rebuttals for this round, I’d like to ask my opponent to bring forth arguments that do not assume ideals as facts and does not speak for a community they could not possibly fully understand. While you’ve raised some interesting points, you’ve yet to give society an actual motive to why we should not accept homosexuality. So, I’ll save whatever comments I have left for the next round. I’ll see you then!


theworldhasgonemad

Con

My opponent makes the point : "This leads me to assert that homosexuals are just as affective/loving parents as heterosexuals, and do NOTHING, as a collective group, to harm the development of the child.".

When conducting such 'research' I think we could both agree that anyone with an agenda has the ability to put a twist on data and evidence to suit that said agenda. I take any of this so called research with a grain of salt. So of course there is plenty of research contrary to what you say, such as this from the family research council:
http://www.frc.org...
which closing argument is:
"The myths that children of homosexual parents are "no different" from other children and suffer "no harm" from being raised by homosexual parents have been shattered forever."

But I'm more inclined to go by first hand experience, and there are anti gay-marriage activists out there who are campaigning because they came from same sex parents and believe it is not in the best interests of the child. They love their parents, they are not homophobic, but they believe it is not the best thing for society:
http://www.washingtontimes.com...

You keep making assertions involving exclusivity, and to prove them wrong only one example against is required. So again, your assertion has been proved wrong because I have provided examples where having same sex parents clearly does harm the development of the child.

Your next point:
"However, I must ask what pertinence it has with the debate? People, by nature, have control over all their choices. I"m generally interested in what this point does to refute me or challenge my assertions. "
Your initial assertion was that homosexuals can't control their homosexuality. I proved that they could by way of example.

It is very relevant to the debate. Homosexuals should be educated that even though they are gay, they still have choices, that those choices could involve living a heterosexual lifestyle, and that living a heterosexual lifestyle can be very fulfilling, even if they are gay. If society didn't 'accept' homosexual behaviour, then homosexuals can still live well adjusted lives even without it.

Your next point:
"1. This is not a known fact. But, since you say it is, give me conclusive evidence proving it. "
I already proved it using known facts - Boys have a penis and girls have a vagina. It's that simple! But since you haven't grasped it yet, I'll elaborate. Homosexuals cannot have sexual intercourse with sexual organs. To have sexual intercourse, they need to use a substitute for a sexual organ. Therefore it is not normal.

Your next point:
"2. This implies that we homosexuals are currently affecting other people. Yes this is true. But for you to post it, there must be a negative connotation. So, please go into this. "

Currently the issues homosexuals face (see point 4) discussion below) do affect other people, with the increased spread of disease, health care costs etc. But I'm sure the world can put up with that since it is not exclusive to homosexuals. The true problem I have is not with people being gay, the true problem I have is with the 'Normalisation of Homosexuality". While this will have some psychological and other benefits to gay people, no-one has really stopped to consider how it will affect the rest of society.

Here are some points to consider that form the basis of my next argument
1) Sexually active teenagers are 500% more likely to commit suicide. Clearly, sexual activity has a significant psychological impact on people.
2) Everyone of us has some degree of bisexuality, measured on something called the Kinsey Scale. Sigmund Freud called it
"Innate Bisexuality", meaning we all have it, but it usually remains latent.
https://en.wikipedia.org...
3) All of us at some point contemplate, or even have, same sex attractions that are outside of our orientation.
4) Children, and even adults are impressionistic, and will imitate the behaviour of others

Gay activism is not just about gay marriage, but more to the point it is about the 'normalisation of homosexuality', and also includes the infiltration of gay behaviours into our media, our television shows, our movies, our advertising and our every day lives. The approval of gay marriage will be a stepping stone to even more homosexual behaviour being on display for everyone to see.

The normalisation of homosexuality will mean the removal of that little voice that tells our kids "hang on, this is wrong". We will actually be educating them that it is normal, or right. So when they are faced with, or contemplate a same sex attraction or situation, gone is that massive barrier telling them to stop. The more we normalise homosexuality, the more gays will be forthcoming with the confidence in trying to solicit others, including straights for sex. The more we normalise homosexuality, the more kids, and even adults, will discover their bisexual side and the psychological problems that come with this (see point 4 discussion below). The more we normalise homosexuality, the more kids will try it even if it is not their orientation, for various reasons like peer pressure, alcohol, lack of other opportunities, or simply by copying what they perceive to be normal.

By allowing gay marriage, we are not only normalising homosexuality, we are teaching society that it is something to be celebrated (absolutely mind boggling). We are destroying a biological truth (boys have a penis and girls have a vagina) and teaching our kids a little black lie that will have disastrous consequences. It will confuse and muddle our childrens' and even adults' thoughts and the ability to distinguish between what is love and what is friendship.

The end result will be more kids and adults experimenting with gay and bisexual sex. The psychological damage to the affected children, adults, and their families will be enormous. There will be an increase in child suicide rates. Families will be destroyed. The creation and spread of disease is going to cost us billions. This is the true evil of the "normalisation of homosexuality". So many innocent children's lives will be ruined, akin to being sexually abused, all because society teaches them that homsexuality is normal.
As a reference, if you google "i am not gay and had gay sex" you can spend hours trawling through search results to find stories similar to this occurring.

Your next point:
"4. This, again, is hearsay that has not basis because my opponent does not actually have a homosexual mind, and therefore does not know if we find peace within ourselves. "
This is not hearsay. Homosexuals statistically have very bad physical and psychological issues:
https://carm.org...

1) They sleep with a lot more partners
2) They create and spread more disease
3) They have higher incidences of substance abuse
4) They have higher incidences of domestic violence
5) They have higher incidences of suicide rates
6) They live on average for about 15 years less.

If homosexuals really had peace within themselves, like you claim then the statistics for a lot of these issues would be a lot lower and fit with the rest of society. I urge you not to ignore this. Homosexuals can find peace within themselves, and that can include living a homosexual lifestyle But you will not find that peace until you acknowledge the truth, that homosexuality is not normal. The world needs to get to a stage where homosexuals can say "i know this is not right, but it's the way i am, and I'm prepared to live with it". The world needs to get to a stage where parents can say "my child is homosexual. I know it's not right, but they have choices. Whatever way they choose to live their life, I will support them as much as I can and love them as much as I can". The world needs to be forthright, upfront and say it for what it is, not hide behind this complete and utter nonsense that somewhere, somehow, homosexuality could be normal. It helps no-one. A boy has a penis and a girl has a vagina. That is an inescapable biological truth that will always come back to haunt homosexuals until they accept it for what it is.

To close this argument, I will leave you with something to ponder - If you were to be honest with yourself and with the rest of the world, then perhaps the rest of the world would be more forgiving of homosexuals and you would face less persecution. Stop the delusion or pretense or lie or whatever it is.
Debate Round No. 3
HermanGomez95

Pro


Instead of posting argument for this round, I’m going to dive right in with my rebuttals.


1. “When conducting such 'research' I think we could both agree that anyone with an agenda has the ability to put a twist on data and evidence to suit that said agenda. While I don’t fully support this assertion, my opponent is right that anyone with clear bias can twist data to suit their beliefs. So, I shall refrain from showing sources that show clear bias and only attempt to source authors whom look at these issues objectively. That being said, my opponent has posted research from the Family Research Council, a group clearly biased against homosexuality. It is also a group that has been formally called a “hate-group” on multiple occasions. So, in that case, yes, their data may be twisted to suit their anti-homosexual agenda. Now I can show endless biased data that supports my assertion, but instead I shall show fully accredited data from several psychological factions. This comes from the compelling brief of The American Psychological Association, The California Psychological Association, The American Psychiatric Association, and The American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy as Amici Curiae in support of Plaintiff-Appellees. (Perry v. Schwarzenegger). Under argument IV, part B literally states, “There is no scientific basis for concluding that gay and lesbian parents are any less fit or capable than heterosexual parents, or that their children are any less psychologically healthy and well adjusted.” [1]


I’ve taken the liberty of selecting a few quotes from the brief that I feel support my argument immensely.


“Although it is sometimes asserted in policy debates that heterosexual couples are inherently better parents than same-sex couples, or that the children of lesbian or gay parents fare worse than children raised by heterosexual parents, those assertions find no support in the scientific research literature.”


“Indeed, the scientific research that has directly compared outcomes for children with gay and lesbian parents with outcomes for children with heterosexual parents has been consistent in showing that lesbian and gay parents are as fit and capable as heterosexual parents, and their children are as psychologically healthy and well-adjusted as children reared by heterosexual parents.”


“Most research on this topic has focused on lesbian mothers and refutes the stereotype that lesbian parents are not as child oriented or maternal as non-lesbian mothers. Researchers have concluded that heterosexual and lesbian mothers do not differ in their parenting ability”


“Turning to the children of gay parents, researchers reviewing the scientific literature conclude that studies provide no evidence that psychological adjustment among lesbians, gay men, their children, or other family members is impaired in any significant way and that every relevant study to date shows that parental sexual orientation per se has no measurable effect on the quality of parent-child relationships or on children’s mental health or social adjustment.”


“Nor does empirical research support the misconception that having a homosexual parent has a deleterious effect on children’s gender identity (i.e. one’s psychological sense of being male or female) development.”


I source this data because, unlike the family research council, these four factions show little to no bias against homophobic institutions, and instead come at this argument with objective means to track accredited data of how parenthood differs between heterosexual and homosexual couples.


2. “But I'm more inclined to go by first hand experience, and there are anti gay-marriage activists out there who are campaigning because they came from same sex parents and believe it is not in the best interests of the child.” While this does show that some people do feel being raised by homosexuals is not the best choice, your version of first-hand expirance doesn’t justify that ALL homosexuals are bad parents. It would be like me saying, “having been raised catholic and knowing it was not best for me, all Catholics parents should cease procreation”.


3. “You keep making assertions involving exclusivity, and to prove them wrong only one example against is required.” My assertions do not label all homosexuals as good parents, just like your assertions do not label all homosexuals as inferior parents. I use the term “collective group” to state that, in some cases homosexuals are not completely effective parents, however, in most cases, they are just as effective as their counterparts.


4. “Homosexuals should be educated that even though they are gay, they still have choices, that those choices could involve living a heterosexual lifestyle, and that living a heterosexual lifestyle can be very fulfilling, even if they are gay. If society didn't 'accept' homosexual behaviour, then homosexuals can still live well adjusted lives even without it.” Your first point assumes that homosexuals don’t know they can live as “heterosexuals”, which is incorrect. In many cases we do know that it is us who chose to have sex/act on our attraction, just as heterosexuals do. Your second point, however, is far less factual than you assume. While you’ve given one example of homosexuals living heterosexually, it is not sufficient enough to assert that, “accepting that homosexuality is abnormal gets rid of persecution.” Because, it does not. This is a debate worthy case of its own, one of which I’d happily accept a challenge from you, but since our debate has many other points, I’ll refrain from fully attacking this assertion and instead continue my other rebuttals.


5. “I already proved it using known facts - Boys have a penis and girls have a vagina. It's that simple!” In many cases it is not that simple. What is a known fact is that homosexual sex is not procreation. That is a fact. However, your standards of normal in a sexual sense are quite different form other’s standards of normal. So, in a way, it is a subjective opinion. Just like my opinion that homosexuality is normal is only an opinion.


6. I have so many issues with my opponents arguments involving the “sexual abuse of children”. Firstly, it makes the assumption that the Kinsey scale of measuring a person’s orientation is still considered valid, which it is not. However, if it was, then it would further support my assertion that homosexuality is normal because same-sex attraction is inevitable. Again the bulk of my opponents arguments make statements as fact, despite them being speculative with little accredited evidence supporting their illustrious claims. I could spend this round dissecting the entirety of their lack of validity, but characters permit me not to.


7. “This is not hearsay. Homosexuals statistically have very bad physical and psychological issues.” Once again we get into my opponents assertion that anyone with an agenda can twist facts. So, in many ways, this could be considered false. However, instead of dodging this source, I’ll address it’s validity head on. It has nothing to do with inner-peace and biological differences. While the article does show that homosexuals are often promiscuous, and are more prone to disease, it fails to address similar statistics with heterosexuals. My opponent even admitted as such in an earlier argument stating that, “But I'm sure the world can put up with that since it is not exclusive to homosexuals.” So, the disease arguments are moot. And, addressing the arguments of psychological damage, I could assert that the large percentile of homosexuals lack of inner-peace has everything to do with the fact that we are subject to backlash and hate from countless groups of people who deem us inferior to them. So, in this case, many of these statistics would go down with the “normalization” of homosexuality.


8. “Homosexuals can find peace within themselves, and that can include living a homosexual lifestyle But you will not find that peace until you acknowledge the truth, that homosexuality is not normal. The world needs to get to a stage where homosexuals can say "i know this is not right, but it's the way i am, and I'm prepared to live with it". The world needs to get to a stage where parents can say "my child is homosexual. I know it's not right, but they have choices. Whatever way they choose to live their life, I will support them as much as I can and love them as much as I can"….” The entirety of this paragraph is utter speculation that has no evidence priving it’s validity. When I say this, I am referring to the arguments stating that we can find peace with ourselves, but only if we accept that we are not normal and that our actions are not right. What my opponent is stating that, we need to accept that people are right for calling us abnormal. People are right to deny us marriage. People are right to discriminate us. In other words, my opponent is lobbying for the acceptance and “normalization” of open bigotry. And, in that case, I very much argue that bigotry is far more abnormal that homosexuality, despite hate being something so commonly occurring.


9. “- If you were to be honest with yourself and with the rest of the world, then perhaps the rest of the world would be more forgiving of homosexuals and you would face less persecution. Stop the delusion or pretense or lie or whatever it is.” Yet again, there is nothing to prove this assertion correct. It is speculation that only reasserts the idealism of my opponent. It continues to assume that homosexuality is wrong and that we are inferior. And, there is no way someone could say that, because there is no evidence to prove such a claim. In fact, one could argue that if we concede all points of us being inferior, we would suffer more discrimination than before.


With my rebuttals complete, I turn the debate over to my opponent. See you in the final round!


Citation:


1. http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov...


theworldhasgonemad

Con

Thank you for your arguments.

I think we can both conclude that having same sex parents does create issues for their children in general, but that these issues are not so great that we would even consider banning same sex parents for the benefit of the children involved. My only qualm is that it adds to the 'normalisation of homosexuality' (even if only to a small degree) which I consider to be inherently evil.

I also agree with you that "accepting that homosexuality is abnormal gets rid of persecution" is not entirely true. But let me explain how I think it would help.

What I do think is that it is something that both parties should agree upon, for the good of everyone. Firstly, it's the biological truth, and nothing can ever change that. That's why it is the gay community that needs to change their stance. It is not possible for society to understand it as normal, because everyone knows that a boy has a penis and a girl has a vagina.

Now, if both parties could agree upon this point, then it brings both parties together with a common understanding. Having something in common is an ice breaker. It opens the doorway for communication. It will mean more kids will talk to their parents. It means more parents will try and understand their kids. If everyone can say 'it's not normal but it doesn't have to be normal and we can all deal with it", then dealing with it in a satisfactory way for both parties will become a reality. Acceptance could become a reality for both sides of the story (I will talk more about homosexuals accepting themselves later).

Your next point is "However, your standards of normal in a sexual sense are quite different form other"s standards of normal.". These are not my standards of normal. These are the biological standards of normal. Every part of the human body has a known biological function.The penis and the vagina are the only biological sex organs. Any other 'standards' are simple delusions to make people feel better about themselves. If we accept that homosexuality is normal, then so too must we accept that paedophilia, bestiality, necrophilia, having sex with park benches, with holes in trees is normal. I can't believe I have to debate this. The biological truth is inescapable, nothing can ever change the fact that a boy has a penis and a girl has a vagina. It is not an opinion. It is the scientifically known truth that can only be changed by delusion.

You also say "However, if it was, then it would further support my assertion that homosexuality is normal because same-sex attraction is inevitable". That is not true. Same sex attraction does not make people homosexual. Everyone will contemplate a same sex attraction. Everyone will consider if they are gay or not. That doesn't make being gay normal. Everyone will contemplate having sex with their pet dog or not. In almost all cases the thought would be looked upon with disgust. But it will still be contemplated., and it certainly doesn't make bestiality normal.

Your next point is "I could spend this round dissecting the entirety of their lack of validity, but characters permit me not to. ". But whatever you say can't change reality. Because there are examples of it happening already. As I said, just google "I am not gay but had gay sex". You can spend hours reading about how people were put into situations where against their better judgement they got involved with gay sex. You can read about the battle they now face for the rest of their lives. It is undeniable that normalising homosexuality will make this problem worse.

The issues I documented for homosexuals did indeed address similar statistics in heterosexuals. In all of them I was comparing them to heterosexuals. In all of them homosexuals had inflated numbers, that was the whole point of listing them! You also cannot argue that the "lack of inner-peace has everything to do with the fact that we are subject to backlash and hate from countless groups". The reason for this is because the statistics are the same in homosexual friendly countries. For instance, in Denmark, where 93% of people would feel entirely comfortable with having a gay neighbour, the suicide rate amongst homosexuals is still 8 times higher than the general population . A leading Italian brain surgeon agrees with me:
http://www.thelocal.it.... It is the identity crisis that gays can't deal with. It is the known biological fact that a boy has a penis, and a girl has a vagina. I don't think it would be possible to ever prove this, because you can't read people's minds. But evidence clearly shows that even with the removal of the stigma, gay activism has failed its own kind because the psychological issues persist. The 'identity crisis' issue, whilst impossible to prove, has a basis in common sense.

"People are right to deny us marriage. People are right to discriminate us. In other words, my opponent is lobbying for the acceptance and "normalization" of open bigotry. And, in that case, I very much argue that bigotry is far more abnormal that homosexuality, despite hate being something so commonly occurring. "

I don't think I have ever come across bigger bigotry than that spewed forth by gay activists. Your comment itself is bigotry at its worst. Bigotry is not just prejudice against a group of people. It is the intolerance of opposing views, of which this comment embodies. Besides that, homophobic people are also a group of people. If you take 'intolerance of homosexual interaction' as being homophobic (rather than just 'intolerance of homosexuals') they are a group of people much larger, and much more normal than homosexuals. So even by your definition of bigotry you are a bigot. We are both bigots. As to what is being more normal, if you ask the population if it is normal to be turned on by sticking your penis up another man's poop chute, or being repulsed by it, the truth will roast you alive.

It is NOT a 'right' that you can marry someone of the same sex. You have the same marriage rights as everyone else, there is nothing stopping you from getting married. What you are asking for is something different, and it must be labelled differently because normalising homosexuality has evil consequences.

Something you don't appreciate here is that repulsion to homosexual interaction is not a learned trait. Repulsion is just as naturally occurring as your attraction. Your demand for 'rights' are just as discriminatory as demands against - except they are discriminatory against a much larger section of the population.

Finally, you make the point:
" It continues to assume that homosexuality is wrong and that we are inferior. And, there is no way someone could say that, because there is no evidence to prove such a claim. In fact, one could argue that if we concede all points of us being inferior, we would suffer more discrimination than before."

I am lost for words here. I'm sorry but my mind just boggles at your delusion. Homosexuality is inferior, and there is no getting past it. Heterosexuality can provide society with the most profound gift of new life, and yet you claim that "there is no evidence to prove such a claim". Wow, just wow. There is such a massive gulf between the equality of our sexualities, something so obvious, which has the most profound impact on society, and yet, and yet, and yet ... "there is no evidence that you are inferior". Oh. My. God.

In concluding these arguments I will say that Normalising Homosexuality is an evil that we must stop imposing on society. It has been shown that the psychological problems of homosexuals persist even with the stigma significantly reduced, and that normalising homosexuality does result in more people experimenting with gay sex and the problems spreading to more of the population.
Debate Round No. 4
HermanGomez95

Pro


Before I give my final conclusion for this debate, I’m going to quickly address a few of my opponents comments last round.


“I think we can both conclude that having same sex parents does create issues for their children in general, but that these issues are not so great that we would even consider banning same sex parents for the benefit of the children involved”. We both cannot agree that having same sex parents creates issues for their children, in general. In fact, I find the opposite to be true. And a multitude of sources, including a brief from 4 accredited psychological associations, agree with me.



“Now, if both parties could agree upon this point, then it brings both parties together with a common understanding. Having something in common is an ice breaker. It opens the doorway for communication. It will mean more kids will talk to their parents. It means more parents will try and understand their kids. If everyone can say 'it's not normal but it doesn't have to be normal and we can all deal with it", then dealing with it in a satisfactory way for both parties will become a reality.” This idealism is sweet and innocent, but completely misinformed. In many cases, some homosexuals concede to your point, and agree they are not normal. But, discrimination and bigotry are still prevalent. Why, because until we give up the entirety of a homosexual lifestyle, anti-homosexual people will never accept our actions. Normalizing has nothing to do with it. The pure idea is that people do not like homosexuality, so they will never accept it, even if homosexuals admit we are not normal.



“Everyone will contemplate a same sex attraction. Everyone will consider if they are gay or not. That doesn't make being gay normal. Everyone will contemplate having sex with their pet dog or not. In almost all cases the thought would be looked upon with disgust.” And you call my delusion surprising. Firstly, I’m not sure about everyone, but I for one have bever considered having sex with my pet. Secondly, contemplate same-sex attraction and having same-sex attraction are two different things. You say everyone is inherently bisexual, meaning everyone has attraction to both genders. This is what I am arguing against. I do not feel everyone has attraction to all genders. Period.



“But whatever you say can't change reality. Because there are examples of it happening already. As I said, just google "I am not gay but had gay sex". You can spend hours reading about how people were put into situations where against their better judgement they got involved with gay sex. You can read about the battle they now face for the rest of their lives. It is undeniable that normalising homosexuality will make this problem worse.” It is not undeniable, because you’ve yet to show significant evidence of a society where homosexuality was normalized collapsing.



“For instance, in Denmark, where 93% of people would feel entirely comfortable with having a gay neighbour, the suicide rate amongst homosexuals is still 8 times higher than the general population”. I’d like a source for this assertion, as well as case studies for at lease 10% of the suicide rates, proving it was homosexuality that lead to such actions. Until you can provide both, this argument has no credibility whatsoever.




“I don't think I have ever come across bigger bigotry than that spewed forth by gay activists. Your comment itself is bigotry at its worst. Bigotry is not just prejudice against a group of people. It is the intolerance of opposing views, of which this comment embodies. We are both bigots. As to what is being more normal, if you ask the population if it is normal to be turned on by sticking your penis up another man's poop chute, or being repulsed by it, the truth will roast you alive.” According to the Merriam-Webster definition, a bigot is: a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group) [1]. Clearly I should have used this definition when bringing up the topic of bigotry, but I made the assumption that it’s definition was well understood. While homosexual activists can be very dramatic sometimes, I will assert that we do not show evidence of clear intolerance towards homophobes, otherwise there would be far more violence against them. Here’s where your particular logic gets to me. Calling us bigots can be justified, in some regard. Calling us bigger bigots than you is beyond baffling to me. Until we’ve killed, raped, beaten, and psychologically damaged a small percentage of your people, only on the basis that you hate gays, you cannot say that we exemplify the biggest bigots in the market.



“It is NOT a 'right' that you can marry someone of the same sex. You have the same marriage rights as everyone else, there is nothing stopping you from getting married. What you are asking for is something different, and it must be labelled differently because normalising homosexuality has evil consequences.” Yet again, my opponent fails to provide evidence of evil consequences occurring now that homosexual marriage has been legalized.



“Something you don't appreciate here is that repulsion to homosexual interaction is not a learned trait. Repulsion is just as naturally occurring as your attraction. Your demand for 'rights' are just as discriminatory as demands against - except they are discriminatory against a much larger section of the population.” Our demands for rights are NOT discriminatory because they DO NOT TAKE AWAY THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS! If we demanded that only gay marriage be legalized, or that only gay adoption be legalized, or that only homosexuality be legalized, you’d have plenty to go on. But all we are asking is that our rights be legalized WITH your rights. This, in itself, is not discrimination.



Homosexuality is inferior, and there is no getting past it. Heterosexuality can provide society with the most profound gift of new life, and yet you claim that "there is no evidence to prove such a claim". I shall not refute these claims, not because they are correct, but because doing so without abandoning civility is nearly impossible. I’ll say only one thing: to call any group of person on this earth inferior is prejudice at it’s finest and all but solidifies my point that homosexuality experiences far more backlash than homophobia.


Citation:


http://www.merriam-webster.com...


__________________________________________________



Now for my conclusion for this debate:


My opponent’s arguments assert the following: Homosexuality is not normal. The normalization of homosexuality is evil. If this happens, many horrendous outcomes will follow.


My opponent has only come close to proving one of these issues, which is that homosexuality may not be normal. All other assertions have no conclusive evidence and are considerably ludicrous to assume. While homosexuality may not be normal, the “normalization” of it would not be a bad thing. The statistics my opponent brought up are far less academic than they seem and are speculative in their nature. In other words, they do not prove that bad things WOULD happen, they only suggest that bad things COULD happen. This is why you should not vote Con.


Voting Pro would be voting for the arguments that actually consisted of evidence. My arguments proved my opponent’s assertions incorrect. They also supported my assertions. When Con attempted to refute my claims, the usual rebuttals were, “Men have a penis, women have a vagina. Homosexuality is not normal, therefore normalization of it will be bad! Therefore, any pro homosexual points are wrong!” Any other rebuttals have been addressed in the debate itself.


However, lets get technical with this debate to really look at who should be elected the victor.


In nearly all of their arguments, Con made “fact statements”, which gave them considerably more BoP than I. While I occasionally asserted issues as fact, I used accredited data to prove my assertions correct. In most cases, Con did not. This leads be to urge you to vote Pro.


In conclusion, Con’s arguments are nothing more than a self-justification for their open bigotry. Now, they will argue that I am a bigot as well, and to that my response is this: I have no ill will against anyone who views homosexuality as abnormal. In many cases, they provide sufficient points to argue this with me. What I do have an issue with is people who support further oppression of my people. What I do have an issue with is people who define any group of people as inferior solely because they are different. However, I do not view people like this as evil. And that is where the separation between hate and dislike lies. Con clearly has issues with homosexuals in general. However, I’m not here to comment on that. I’m here to comment on the debate. In that case, Con failed to argue against homosexuality without letting their bias blind them into thinking their arguments were fact instead of speculation. In many cases, I concurred that my arguments may not be fully true. But, I did provide sufficient evidence as to why they could very well be true. Con did not do this, so con should not win.


Thanks to my opponent for a very interesting debate. Please message me if you have any questions or desire to discuss this topic further. As for voters, read the arguments, see the difference of opinions and facts, and vote Pro!


theworldhasgonemad

Con

Unfortunately most of my opponents are misconstrued, twisted into another form, delusional, or outright lies. Let me elaborate by disecting each of them one by one.

"We both cannot agree that having same sex parents creates issues for their children, in general. In fact, I find the opposite to be true. And a multitude of sources, including a brief from 4 accredited psychological associations, agree with me. " This is just an outright lie. You know that children of same sex parents are bullied because of it, so you know at the very least that it does create this issue for some children. The fact that children of same sex parents are campaigning against it is conclusive proof that at least some children would be affected. The pschological associations conclusions are only that "in general the children come out of it fine". It makes no mention of the issues they face along the way and the fact they can overcome those issues.

"This idealism is sweet and innocent, but completely misinformed. In many cases, some homosexuals concede to your point, and agree they are not normal. But, discrimination and bigotry are still prevalent. Why, because until we give up the entirety of a homosexual lifestyle, anti-homosexual people will never accept our actions. Normalizing has nothing to do with it. The pure idea is that people do not like homosexuality, so they will never accept it, even if homosexuals admit we are not normal. "

You have absolutely nothing to back you up that it is completely misinformed. It is known that communication helps people deal with problems. It is known that there is a lack of communication between homosexuals and their oppressors (eg family). It is indisputable that finding a common ground will help to open those communication channels and help a lot of people. But I do concede that homophobia can never be fully erased.

" It is not undeniable, because you"ve yet to show significant evidence of a society where homosexuality was normalized collapsing."
My opponent here has invented an assertion that I have never made. What has a 'society collapsing' got to do with anything? You have failed to come up with any logical argument why normalising homosexuality isn't affecting other people. I have provided real life examples of how it is, and the evil affects it has on those people.

" I"d like a source for this assertion, as well as case studies for at lease 10% of the suicide rates, proving it was homosexuality that lead to such actions. Until you can provide both, this argument has no credibility whatsoever. "
I pity you that you don't want things to be true even though you know they are. The source for this is the US government:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
who's conclusion is
"Suicide risk appears greatly elevated for men in same-sex partnerships in Denmark. To what extent this is true for similar gay and bisexual men who are not in such relationships is unknown, but these findings call for targeted suicide prevention programs aimed at reducing suicide risk among gay and bisexual men."

It appears I made a mistake with the 93% figure, but the real data can still be used to make the same point:
fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/370-FRA-hdgso-part2-NR_DK.pdf
"The 2008 Eurobarometer asked, 'How would you personally feel about having a homosexual (gay man or lesbian woman) as a neighbour?' (1 meaning 'very uncomfortable' and 10 meaning 'very comfortable'). The figure in Denmark was 9.3. compared with an EU average of 7.9"

", I will assert that we do not show evidence of clear intolerance towards homophobes, otherwise there would be far more violence against them. Here"s where your particular logic gets to me. Calling us bigots can be justified, in some regard. Calling us bigger bigots than you is beyond baffling to me. Until we"ve killed, raped, beaten, and psychologically damaged a small percentage of your people, only on the basis that you hate gays, you cannot say that we exemplify the biggest bigots in the market. "
You argument is fundamentally flawed. You gave a definition of bigotry, and absolutely nowhere does violence come up in the definition. Yet You are saying that violence is a necessity to show intolerance? I'm sorry but your argument has absolutely zero credibility. I do however concede that a very small percentage of homophobics have evil, extreme methods of dealing with their bigotry, which is what I think you were trying to say.

"Our demands for rights are NOT discriminatory because they DO NOT TAKE AWAY THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS! If we demanded that only gay marriage be legalized, or that only gay adoption be legalized, or that only homosexuality be legalized, you"d have plenty to go on. But all we are asking is that our rights be legalized WITH your rights. This, in itself, is not discrimination. "
But it is discrimination. You are discriminating against religion that dictates that society must not accept homosexuality. You are discriminating against the truth that homosexuality is different to heterosexuality. If something is different, then there is no such thing as a 'right to be the same'. Gay marriage can never be the same as hetero marriage. It cannot ever grow and nurture a family the same way that heterosexual marriage does. It makes no sense at all that it is a 'right' for homosexual unions to be treated the same as heterosexual unions. They are different, nothing can ever change that, and so they should be treated as different. There are all sorts of 'legal rights' which marriage has which homosexual unions should also be entitled to. But 'marriage' is not a right. It is the fundamental institution that provides the best framework for society to grow. It is no longer this if it also includes gay unions. That is why it is nonsensical to consider gay marriage a 'right'.

"I"ll say only one thing: to call any group of person on this earth inferior is prejudice at it"s finest and all but solidifies my point that homosexuality experiences far more backlash than homophobia. "
The truth is not a prejudice. The truth is that heterosexuals can produce life and homosexuals can't . Herman, you have to accept the truth for your own well-being. You can't hide behind what you want to be the truth. I did not say you are an inferior person to me, but that is the way you are taking it. Your sexuality is inferior, and nothing can ever change that. A "right" is something that exists DESPITE your sexual orientation. You already have the right to marriage, DESPITE your orientation. Demanding gay marriage is asking for something BECAUSE of your orientation. That is a behavioural choice, and not a right.

"The statistics my opponent brought up are far less academic than they seem and are speculative in their nature. In other words, they do not prove that bad things WOULD happen, they only suggest that bad things COULD happen. This is why you should not vote Con. "

The statistics are beyond doubt, if you have any doubt just google them and you will find them backed up by any number of reliable sources. I don't think you have any doubt, you just fervently wish that they weren't true.

Not only did I prove that bad things could happen, I have pointed out to you how you can read real life stories for hours and hours about the consequences of normalisation. I repeat, just google "I am not gay and had gay sex". This is not something that could happen, this is something that is happening. This is something very evil happening to a lot of people. It is very evil that homosexuals have to face these kind of problems too, but transferring these problems into the wider part of society and ruining innocent children's lives is unforgiveable.

In conclusion:

I have conclusively proven through known biological facts that homosexuality is not normal.

I have conclusively proven that homosexuality is inferior (heterosexuality can create life, homosexuality can't). To treat sexualities the same is therefore nonsensical. People should be treated the same, but not sexualities.

I have shown through widely publicised statistics that homosexuals have significant issues they face through life that culminates in an average lifespan of 15 years less than the population.

I have given real life examples of how normalising homosexuality is creating situations where people that aren't gay are having gay sex and having enormous issues dealing with it.

My opponent has failed to refute any of these main points that were the crux of the debate.

My final statement is this:

"Homosexuality is not normal, and therefore should not be treated as such, as that is just a lie. It is shown that even when it is widely accepted in society (Denmark) that the psychological problems inherent in homosexuals persist. It has been shown that normalising homosexuality is transferring these problems into the wider part of society and into innocent children's lives. This is an unforgiveable evil that needs to stop.

It is also evil the persecutions that homosexuals face, and unforgiveable how this contributes to their issues. Homophobia will always persist because it is just as naturally occurring as homosexuality. I feel the only way to reduce homophobia is for the world to face the truth. Homosexuality is not normal, but it is the way people are and nothing can change that, and we can all live with it. I sincerely feel that by admitting this truth, more gays will find the inner peace that they otherwise can't, and that the effects of homophobia will be signficantly reduced because the homophobes have received the satisfaction that what they know to be the truth has been validated."

Thanks to my opponent and the audience. I wish us all peace and well being.
Debate Round No. 5
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by theworldhasgonemad 1 year ago
theworldhasgonemad
Spaztech the problem with letting people marry who they want is that this contributes to the normalisation of homosexuality. This is not only telling people it's normal, this is tell people it's something to be celebrated. My mind boggles.

A homosexual union can never be the same as a heterosexual one. It can never grow a family like a heterosexual one. It makes no sense to label it the same. People can become attached to animals, computers, cars, robots etc just the same as becoming attached to someone else of the same sex. It is just as psychologically compelling for them to have this considered as normal. Where are there "rights"? Why must society not be inclusive of them?

It is the gay activist movement that as used the same techniques the Nazis used to brainwash society into believing this delusion.

I am so scared for society.
Posted by Spaztech 1 year ago
Spaztech
Con has provided a stronger case against the normalization of homosexuality. At it's core, once the rationalizations, justifications and opinions are stripped away the gay movement is about one thing, behavior and getting society to believe that behavior is acceptable. I believe you should have the right to love who you wish, marry who you want ( as long as your religion permits it, marriage being a religious institution), have sex with who you wish ( as long as it is consensual ). However, anyone who believes that the anal cavity is meant to be used as a sexual orifice is either willfully ignorant or deluding themselves with rationalizations to justify the fulfillment of their desires. The anal cavity is designed as a waste excreatment orifice, there are poisons in that waste, purposefully plunging any part of your body into it should never be considered right.
You have the right to do so but, trying to convince others it is right is irresponsible at best and malicious at worst.
Posted by Preston 1 year ago
Preston
Make sure you notify airmax, because you posted more then 5 polls
Posted by theworldhasgonemad 1 year ago
theworldhasgonemad
No I won't, there was a technical problem with the website. Every time I pressed "save poll" it said " we cannot save your poll".
Posted by Preston 1 year ago
Preston
Pro you won, Con will be banned soon, spamming polls
Posted by Spaztech 1 year ago
Spaztech
interesting points con.
No votes have been placed for this debate.