The Instigator
HermanGomez95
Pro (for)
Winning
3 Points
The Contender
crueldebater
Con (against)
Losing
1 Points

Homosexuality

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
HermanGomez95
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/30/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 598 times Debate No: 78165
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

HermanGomez95

Pro

This debate adresses accepting/condoning homosexuality.I have taken the Pro stance against the question, asserting that homosexuality should be welcomed and accepted by society.
Whomever accepts this debate will argue this notion with me. For the sake of the argument, I will not accept anyone who agrees with me, but desires the challenge of debating this subject. I am looking to have a heated, but civil debate with someone vehemently against homosexuality.
Since this debate is somewhat eccentric, both parties must share the BoP, meaning we both must prove our points. Beyond that, I ask that both parties agree upon definitions in the comments sections as to not waste any characters.
The debate structure is as follows:
ROUND 1: ACCEPTANCE ROUND AND DEFINITION CLARIFICATIONS Accept my debate and provide your definitions. If I disagree with any of them, I will take to the comments section to clarify them.

ROUND 2 (PART ONE): OPENING ARGUMENTS Provide one’s general consensus of homosexuality.
ROUND 2 (PART TWO): HOMOSEXUALITY AND MARRIAGE Provide one’s consensus on gay marriage and it’s effect on society.

ROUND 3: HOMOSEXUALITY AND PARENTHOOD Provide one’s consensus on Gay and Lesbian parents and their effect on society.

ROUND 4: HOMOSEXUALITY AND MORALITY Provide one’s consensus on homosexuality and whether or not it should be accepted and/or condoned.

ROUND 5: CLOSING STATEMENTS (NO NEW ARGUMENTS) Conclude one’s arguments with a brief statement as why one’s opinions are factual. This is also where you should place any remaining rebuttals.

I hope to find a worthy opponent who will represent the very opposite of my opinions so that we may have an equally enlightening debate.
Let’s keep this civil but impassioned!
crueldebater

Con

What do you mean by "provide your definitions"? But yea eye accept this debate.
Debate Round No. 1
HermanGomez95

Pro

Thanks to my opponent for accepting my debate. I hope to have a very heated and entertaining debate!


ROUND 1 (Part One): Opening Arguments.


Homosexuality is, by far, one of the most controversial topics in modern society. While we are living in a time were diversity is slowly being accepted, many people remain negative to homosexuality. The debate aims to question why people should accept homosexuality. It will look at 3 separate topics in hopes to resolve the question “Should homosexuality be welcomed and accepted by society?” It is my belief that, since homosexuality does nothing to threaten society, it should not be viewed as an abomination. In fact, over the next few rounds, I will be arguing that homosexuals flourish in society, therefore helping it, not hindering it.


ROUND 1 (Part Two): Homosexual Marriage


As with most my arguments, I assert that there is nothing wrong with Homosexual marriage because it does nothing to harm society. Also, gay marriage should be accepted based on the fact that denial of gay marriage is to deny an entire class of citizens basic human rights. I could go further into this topic, but with the Supreme Courts ruling and the general public acceptance of marriage equality, I feel I do not need to.


Therefore, I turn the debate over to my opponent.

crueldebater

Con

Round 2 (Part One): OPENING ARGUMENTS:

Homosexuality is a very controversial topic. Let me just start off with the fact that it is a choice, but not in the sense one chooses to be gay. Basically, there has been no scientific proof that you are born gay, the so-called "gay gene" has been disproved over and over again. It happens in your childhood and in the environment in which you were raised, and therefore can be changed. Homosexuals cannot reproduce and keep the human population growing. either. Also, in many religions homosexuality is considered wrong, this will lead to kids who identify as gay breaking off from families and close relationships. I will further this as we go along in this debate.

Round 2 (Part 2): Homosexuality and marriage

Homosexual marriage will have a very bad effect on our society. People are just going to say "love is love". A man loving animals such as dogs or horses is ok? I mean, it's not ,much different then homosexual marriage. Neither can reproduce. And you can't say "oh, well they're different species". Different types of animals fall in love with other animals, such as how homosexuality is common in nature. That is all for now, and I now turn this debate toward my opponent.
Debate Round No. 2
HermanGomez95

Pro

ROUND 3: HOMOSEXUALITY AND PARENTHOOD.

The debate over homosexual marriage is somewhat controversial, it’s counterpart (homosexuals as parents) brings much more questions to the table. My opponent will, undoubtedly, argue that a child needs both a male and a female influence in their lives in order to grow up positively. This hackneyed argument is insufficient for a multitude of reasons. 1.) It demotes single heterosexual parents. 2.) There is sufficient evidence to refute it.

According to research done by the Canadian Psychological Association their, “… review of the psychological research led us to conclude that the children of same-sex parents do not differ from the children of heterosexual parents in terms of their psychosocial development, their gender development and their gender identity.” [1] The article goes on further to state, “As the CPA stated in 2003, the stressors encountered by gay and lesbian parents and their children are more likely the result of the way in which society treats them than because of any deficiencies in fitness to parent.” [1]

Supplemental evidence does not stop there. In their conclusion of “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Parented Families” The Australian Psychological Society states, “The research indicates that parenting practices and children’s outcomes in families parented by lesbian and gay parents are likely to be at least as favorable as those in families of heterosexual parents, despite the reality that considerable legal discrimination and inequity remain significant challenges for these families.” [2]

Another study (How Does the Gender of Parent Matter?) asserts, “Claims that children need both a mother and father presume that women and men parent differently in ways crucial to development but generally rely on studies that conflate gender with other family structure variables.” [3]

Lastly, there is 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.” [4]

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.”

In conclusion, there is plethora of convincing and accredited evidence that shows one’s orientation does not affect a child’s development, whatsoever. This also leads most to believe that any arguments against gay marriage on the basis of parenthood are moot as well.

I now turn the argument over to my opponent. I hope he is well prepared.

Citations:

1. https://web.archive.org...

2. http://www.psychology.org.au...

3. http://www.readcube.com...

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

crueldebater

Con

Round 3: HOMOSEXUALITY AND PARENTHOOD:
My opponent was definently right when he said I will argue that kids need a mom and dad. But he was wrong when he said there is insuffiencent data. According to FRC.org, kids of homosexual parents compared to kids of biological parents,"Are more likely to suffer from depression" and "Have been arrested more often". The same study showed kids of lesbian mothers, "Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance", "Smoke more frequently", "Use marijuana more frequently", and "Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offense". Also, according too forthechildreninc.com, 29% of kids of homosexual parents said they had sexual interactions with their parents while only 0.6% of kids of heterosexual parents said they did. I don't think I really have to explain why that's bad. The study also stated that a disproportionate number of children of homosexual parents felt betrayed by their parents. There is much more statistics that you and everyone seeing this argument should go check out on the websites. But sadly this is all I have time for. I now turn this debate towards my opponent for round 4!

http://forthechildreninc.com...
http://www.frc.org...
Debate Round No. 3
HermanGomez95

Pro

ROUND 4: HOMOSEXUALITY AND MORALITY

The debate over homosexuality, in general, is far broader and more controversial than most debates. In fact, the sheer scope of the debate is too large for me to adequately address every argument. Therefore, I’ll provide only one argument to reason the assertion that homosexuality is not immoral and therefore should be accepted: Homosexuality is something you are inherently born with, thus you should not be criticized and/or discriminated against because of it.

Since this topic directly responds to my opponents assertions in round 2, I’ll take this moment to refute them.

In his opening argument, my opponent said “Let me just start off with the fact that it is a choice, but not in the sense one chooses to be gay. Basically, there has been no scientific proof that you are born gay, the so-called "gay gene" has been disproved over and over again. It happens in your childhood and in the environment in which you were raised, and therefore can be changed.

His assertions are mistaken for a multitude of reasons, including the fact that he does not address additional evidence besides the gay gene.

To cannibalize on an earlier debate I had on this topic, I’ve requoted a few select sources I feel get my point across.

“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]

“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]

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

“Scientists have uncovered the strongest evidence yet in the debate of whether people are ‘born gay’.” [4]

While these articles may appear subjective and speculative, they provide sufficient reasoning that people are born gay.

Another compelling source, one that actually provides scientific data, is the widely groundbreaking study Psychological Medicine. In the study, the abstract concludes the following: “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]

While there is no irrefutable evidence that a person is born gay, as scientific studies continue to evolve, the validity of this notion because more and more accepted.

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, because of this, people should not be viewed as abominable. They should be accepted for being who they are.

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...

________________________________________________________

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

crueldebater

Con

ROUND 4: HOMOSEXUALITY AND MORALITY Provide one"s consensus on homosexuality and whether or not it should be accepted and/or condoned

Round 4: HOMOSEXUALITY AND MORALITY
As I stated earlier in my argument, I said homosexuality is a choice, but not in the sense that one chooses to be gay. It is something that happens in your childhood and in the environment in which you were raised, so it therefore can be changed. My opponent mentioned this, but even said himself that there is still no evidence to support you are born gay! But let's just ignore that. Let's focus on if it should be accepted or not. NO! I even stated this earlier in my speech. People can just easily say "love is love". What about people who have sexual feelings for animals? My opponent pointed out homosexuality is common in nature. Well, so is different species falling in love with other species, such as the Dzo or Yakow. You might say, "Well humans can't reproduce with other animals". And you'd be right. But neither can homosexuals! And of course, a lot of you will say "well homosexuality can help with the population". We don't NEED homosexuality in order to control the population. Adoption, one child policy, and many other things can solve that. Let's also get into the health of this. According to aids.gov, "Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) of all races and ethnicities remain the population most profoundly affected by HIV". And what does HIV lead too? You got it, AIDS. And what comes next? DEATH! So yea, we should totally accept something like that. But what about lesbians? According to womenshealth.gov, "Many studies show that lesbians and bisexual women have a higher body mass index (BMI) than other women" and " Studies suggest that lesbians may store more of their fat in the abdomen (stomach area)". This belly fat increases the risk for heart disease and type 2 diabetes, which again can lead to DEATH! So, a sexual orientation that can lead to health problems and eventually death is something we should just accept? I don't think so. And I'm sure some of you are wondering, "well, if we don't accept homosexuality, how are people who consider themselves that going to live happy?". That is a very good question, but as time goes on, we just need more evidence on the roots of homosexuality in humans, cure it, and reach a conclusion from there.
So, in conclusion, homosexuality should NOT be accepted and therefore condoned. My citations will be posted below. I now turn this debate toward my opponent. See you in the final round!
http://womenshealth.gov...
https://www.aids.gov...
Debate Round No. 4
HermanGomez95

Pro


Thanks to my opponent for a very fun and heated debate. I promise to be as fervent in this last round as I’ve been in the rest of debate.


Closing Arguments and Rebuttals.


My opponent has blatantly failed to substantiate any of his ludicrous and hollow assertions. In this final round, I will dissect all of my opponent’s assertions and reveal why every single one of them is either irrelevant, inaccurate, or untrue all together.


Round 2:


“the so-called "gay gene" has been disproved over and over again” Inaccurate. As I stated in round, my opponent’s assertions are mistaken for a multitude of reasons, including the fact that he does not address additional evidence besides the gay gene. Read the rest of my argument there to find the sufficient rebuttal.


“Homosexuals cannot reproduce and keep the human population growing.” Irrelevant. As I’ve stated in former debates on the matter, if procreation was the sole basis for marriage, than an infertile couple, or an elderly couple, or a couple not wanting children all together should not be allowed to marry. Secondly, I could argue that not expanding the population surplus may not be a bad thing.


“In many religions homosexuality is considered wrong, this will lead to kids who identify as gay breaking off from families and close relationships.” Irrelevant. The very fact that gay people break away from anti-gay people is not a substantial argument against homosexuality at all. In fact, it almost proves my point: The fact that society does not accept homosexuality leads to hardship like this.


“Homosexual marriage will have a very bad effect on our society.” Untrue. Firstly, let me address that my opponent has done nothing to substantiate this fallacious claim. Why? Perhaps it is because he has little evidence to support it. Well, unlike my opponent, I have evidence that proves the exact opposite of his assertions. If you go to gaymarriage.procon.org, you’ll find a list of pro’s including the following: “Gay marriages can bring financial gain to federal, state, and local governments and can help boost the economy. Government revenue from marriage comes from marriage licenses, higher income taxes in some circumstances (the so-called "marriage penalty"), and decreases in costs for state benefit programs.” [1].


“A man loving animals such as dogs or horses is ok? I mean, it's not ,much different then homosexual marriage” Irrelevant, inaccurate, and wholly untrue. Of the upmost superficial and discriminatory arguments against homosexual marriage, this one is by far the most offensive. Firstly, likening a monogamous relationship between two consenting adults to bestiality is fallacious in the extreme. The mere fact that bestiality isn’t consensual refutes this point. Secondly, yet again has my opponent failed to substantiate such an imbecilic claim.


Round 3:


“According to FRC.org, kids of homosexual parents compared to kids of biological parents,"Are more likely to suffer from depression" and "Have been arrested more often".” Inaccurate. Let me start of by saying that there is considerable bias in the FRC, which has, on more than one occasion, been labeled as a hate group. So, the fact that they say that they state such a thing is not uprising whatsoever. Secondly, if you were to fully read the article, you’ll notice how unscientific their “methods” were. So, my opponents supporting claims should be ignored.


“Also, according too forthechildreninc.com, 29% of kids of homosexual parents said they had sexual interactions with their parents while only 0.6% of kids of heterosexual parents said they did.” Untrue. Firstly, I’d like to point out that the actual scientific study that states such an offensive claim has been removed. Secondly, let me be clear in stating that my opponent has used 2 sources that show unequivocal amounts of bias against homosexuality in general. My 5 sources are far less biased, with the final source coming from respected doctors around the country.


Round 4:


Since nearly half of my opponent’s fourth round was spent reiterating most of his nonsensical arguments from the second round, I’ll save characters and avoid refuting such erroneous claims. HOWEVER, I would like to address a few particularly offensive statements.


1. We don't NEED homosexuality in order to control the population. Adoption, one child policy, and many other things can solve that. While there is surprisingly some truth in this assertion, I must address the horrendous choice to start supplementing “one child” policies. Firstly, it has no relation to homosexuality, secondly, it’s malicious in it’s very nature.


2. “According to aids.gov, "Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) of all races and ethnicities remain the population most profoundly affected by HIV". And what does HIV lead too? You got it, AIDS. And what comes next? DEATH! So yea, we should totally accept something like that.” Discriminating against someone because they are more susceptible to death is beyond wrong. If my opponent feels this way, then his list should include any child of a diabetic, any obese person, anyone with a family history of cancer and many other cases of susceptible diseases.


3. "well, if we don't accept homosexuality, how are people who consider themselves that going to live happy?". That is a very good question, but as time goes on, we just need more evidence on the roots of homosexuality in humans, cure it, and reach a conclusion from there. Firstly, this is basically a concession that my opponent doesn’t have any evidence refuting the fact that homosexuality is not a choice. Secondly, let us address the additional fact that his lobbying for a cure is an irrelevant argument that only supports my claims that people should accept homosexuality because they do not have any sufficient reason not to.


In conclusion, the bulk of my opponent’s arguments are unsubstantiated, untrue, and purely offensive. He has indeed failed to provide any claims that what he says is true and, in doing so, has failed to honor his acceptance of a shared BoP debate. Moreover, his arguments are far too simplistic and idiotic to be considered proper evidence against my argument, which in turn actually provide reasoning behind the assertion that homosexuality should be accepted.


As a homosexual myself, I feel that arguments against my “lifestyle” are unsubstantiated, aimless, and offensive because they lack any insight to what homosexuality is. As an informed member of society, I believe that not accepting something that does no harm to society is wrong, therefore, I believe that not accepting homosexuality is wrong. Since my opponent has done nothing to refute this claim, nor back up any of his own imbecilic claims, I urge you to vote Pro on this debate! Thank you.


Citation:


1. http://gaymarriage.procon.org...


crueldebater

Con

As this debate comes to a close, I will like to thank my opponent for having me on his debate. And I will now spend this last round responding to all the claims this guy has made against my arguments and why they are just in particular wrong.

1. ""the so-called "gay gene" has been disproved over and over again" Inaccurate. As I stated in round, my opponent"s assertions are mistaken for a multitude of reasons, including the fact that he does not address additional evidence besides the gay gene. Read the rest of my argument there to find the sufficient rebuttal. "
My opponent did mention my words on the gay gene in the 4th round, but even himself at the end of his sources said "While there is no irrefutable evidence that a person is born gay"! Meaning, there is still no exact proof! As I did only mention the gay gene, there is still nothing else that can prove homosexuality is something you are born with.

2."Homosexuals cannot reproduce and keep the human population growing." Irrelevant. As I"ve stated in former debates on the matter, if procreation was the sole basis for marriage, than an infertile couple, or an elderly couple, or a couple not wanting children all together should not be allowed to marry. Secondly, I could argue that not expanding the population surplus may not be a bad thing. "
First off, infertile and elderly are things you do not have control over, homosexuality you do. And a couple not wanting children is fine because they still can, and if needed too (for some reason) they could. Secondly, I mentioned population in my speech, and said we do not need homosexuality to solve it.

3. "Homosexual marriage will have a very bad effect on our society." Untrue. Firstly, let me address that my opponent has done nothing to substantiate this fallacious claim. Why? Perhaps it is because he has little evidence to support it. Well, unlike my opponent, I have evidence that proves the exact opposite of his assertions. If you go to gaymarriage.procon.org, you"ll find a list of pro"s including the following: "Gay marriages can bring financial gain to federal, state, and local governments and can help boost the economy. Government revenue from marriage comes from marriage licenses, higher income taxes in some circumstances (the so-called "marriage penalty"), and decreases in costs for state benefit programs."
I find it funny how my opponent did not even mention what I said right after that to support my claim. I said people will just say "love is love" which is very true. And I'll further into this on the next argument.

4." A man loving animals such as dogs or horses is ok? I mean, it's not ,much different then homosexual marriage" Irrelevant, inaccurate, and wholly untrue. Of the upmost superficial and discriminatory arguments against homosexual marriage, this one is by far the most offensive. Firstly, likening a monogamous relationship between two consenting adults to bestiality is fallacious in the extreme. The mere fact that bestiality isn"t consensual refutes this point. Secondly, yet again has my opponent failed to substantiate such an imbecilic claim."
Again, he mentioned ABSOLUTELY NOTHING I said after I stated the claim. He is right when he says bestiality isn't very consensual, but he also forgot to mention how I said animals liking different animals in very common in nature, such as the Dzo or Yakow. Also forgot to mention how the animal and man cannot reproduce, just like homosexuals. So yes, it is true.

5. "According to FRC.org, kids of homosexual parents compared to kids of biological parents,"Are more likely to suffer from depression" and "Have been arrested more often"." Inaccurate. Let me start of by saying that there is considerable bias in the FRC, which has, on more than one occasion, been labeled as a hate group. So, the fact that they say that they state such a thing is not uprising whatsoever. Secondly, if you were to fully read the article, you"ll notice how unscientific their "methods" were. So, my opponents supporting claims should be ignored. "
Not surprised he would try and find some way to refute against my scientific study. He said that the methods were unscientific, but yet did not try and explain why. And the fact people have called it a hate group doesn't change their results from the study they pulled out. So no, my claims should be heard.

6."Also, according too forthechildreninc.com, 29% of kids of homosexual parents said they had sexual interactions with their parents while only 0.6% of kids of heterosexual parents said they did." Untrue. Firstly, I"d like to point out that the actual scientific study that states such an offensive claim has been removed. Secondly, let me be clear in stating that my opponent has used 2 sources that show unequivocal amounts of bias against homosexuality in general. My 5 sources are far less biased, with the final source coming from respected doctors around the country. "
He said the actual scientific study that states this has been removed, and yet never mentioned what this study is or was. And then he went on to call my sources biased. So, he called it untrue, but really had no evidence to support why or how. So, again, my claims should be heard.

7. "We don't NEED homosexuality in order to control the population. Adoption, one child policy, and many other things can solve that. While there is surprisingly some truth in this assertion, I must address the horrendous choice to start supplementing "one child" policies. Firstly, it has no relation to homosexuality, secondly, it"s malicious in it"s very nature"
My opponent failed to explain why a one child policy is malicious and also said it has no relation to homosexuality. That is true, because HOMOSEXUALS CANNOT HAVE CHILDREN!

8. "According to aids.gov, "Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) of all races and ethnicities remain the population most profoundly affected by HIV". And what does HIV lead too? You got it, AIDS. And what comes next? DEATH! So yea, we should totally accept something like that." Discriminating against someone because they are more susceptible to death is beyond wrong. If my opponent feels this way, then his list should include any child of a diabetic, any obese person, anyone with a family history of cancer and many other cases of susceptible diseases."
Guess what, you know what's different between homosexuals and obese people and people with diabetes, a family history of cancer, and many other cases of susceptible diseases? YOU HAVE CONTROL OVER WHAT YOU DO WITH YOUR PENIS, AND YOU HAVE CONTROL OVER YOUR WEIGHT! Excuse my bad language here, but you ultimately do have control over both those things and we should not just accept it if it can lead to death!

9. " "well, if we don't accept homosexuality, how are people who consider themselves that going to live happy?". That is a very good question, but as time goes on, we just need more evidence on the roots of homosexuality in humans, cure it, and reach a conclusion from there. Firstly, this is basically a concession that my opponent doesn"t have any evidence refuting the fact that homosexuality is not a choice. Secondly, let us address the additional fact that his lobbying for a cure is an irrelevant argument that only supports my claims that people should accept homosexuality because they do not have any sufficient reason not to."
Yes, there is still not enough evidence on sexuality as a whole. But he cannot just point out how I have no evidence as he still does not have enough to prove that homosexuality is not a choice! And aside from religion, I am not going to just accept a lifestyle that leads to HIV, will stop the human life from progressing and has no evidence to support its something you are born with.

In conclusion, my opponent has tried to ridicule me and say my arguments are idiotic and simplistic when in reality they only prove the point that homosexuality is wrong, He has also cut out and copy and pasted only part of my arguments to try and easily prove against them. I will never treat someone who is homosexual or part of the LGBTQ+ community different from anyone else as they are still human and deserve that respect. Even though I do not agree with what they do and think it is wrong and sinful, I will respect their choices as I hope they respect my own opinions, as with my opponent. And although he was very rude towards the end, I respect that this topic is something he much cares about.

So, through all my evidence and claims that I have proved, I very much urge you to vote for me, the con. Thank you!
Debate Round No. 5
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
Arguments go to Pro, I'll break it down below.

Marriage goes to Pro " He made a basic case that homosexual marriage doesn"t harm society, and it denies citizens basic rights. Con responded to this with strawmans and slippery slope arguments. They didn"t focus on marriage at all, simply referencing bestiality, and reproduction. Con didn"t make any case against gay marriage specifically, and simply continued a rant on homosexuality in general.
Parenthood is tied " He showed that children of homosexual couples do not differ in their development, and gave 4 studies that proved this. However Con also showed how children of gay couples were shown to have higher rates of depression and arrests.

Morality goes to Pro " Pro shows how being gay isn"t a choice, with references to other species, and gave 3 sources that referenced scientific evidence that it more likely that people are born gay than that they choose to be gay. Con didn"t refute any of these studies, and simply stated that Pro himself said there is no evidence to support you are born gay, and Con gave no evidence to show that people choose to be gay. This statement is wrong, because Pro had already given 3 scientific sources that agreed that people are born gay. The rest of Con"s arguments are absurd comparisons. They don"t actually touch the issue of morality of homosexuality, they simply go with a slippery slope argument that homosexuality and bestiality are the same thing because reproduction isn"t possible in both cases.

These were the main arguments that the debate focussed on, and the final tally goes to Pro 3-1.
Posted by HermanGomez95 1 year ago
HermanGomez95
Thanks to my opponent for a very fun debate! Apologies if I did, indeed become ride in the last round, I was purely fervent and had no intention of offending.
Posted by uahshdyy 1 year ago
uahshdyy
People are scared of two men f*cking

Sorry for not posting for all FIVE rounds, I'm gay myself and I don't want kids.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Greg4586 1 year ago
Greg4586
HermanGomez95crueldebaterTied
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 Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct to Con because later in the debate Pro was simply outright rude and disrespectful to Con and went against when he asked for a "heated but civil debate"
Vote Placed by Midnight1131 1 year ago
Midnight1131
HermanGomez95crueldebaterTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD IN COMMENTS