The Instigator
GarretKadeDupre
Pro (for)
Losing
33 Points
The Contender
Soldus
Con (against)
Winning
40 Points

Is Homosexuality Objectively Disordered?

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 14 votes the winner is...
Soldus
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/11/2013 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 4,219 times Debate No: 29079
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (22)
Votes (14)

 

GarretKadeDupre

Pro

TOPIC: Is homosexuality objectively disordered?

PRO: I will be arguing that homosexuality is objectively disordered.

CON: My opponent will be expected to prove that homosexuality is not objectively disordered.

_____________________________________

These are the terms of conduct expected in this debate. If you do not wish to and/or do not intend to follow them please refrain from participating. Thank you.

EVIDENCE: Opinions based on faith ("It's true because I think/believe it is") will not be accepted. Both sides are expected to provide valid evidence supporting their hypotheses while legitimately responding to the other party's evidence, and furthermore, if they disagree, to produce evidence supporting their counter-argument as well. "Valid" evidence in this context is any evidence that has not or cannot be scientifically, legally, logically or empirically disproven.

SCOPE: Sexuality, sexual attraction and sexual conduct are huge topics. By participating in this debate both parties agree to make an effort not to extend arguments outside of the debate topic. Arguments that do so need not be responded to in order to save time and space and keep the debate relevant. In the same vein, please let's not resort to semantics unless absolutely necessary.

SOURCES: Unless you want your source ridiculed, and in an effort to keep the debate fair, please choose valid sources of information/evidence that both parties have access to. Sites such as Wikipedia that anyone can edit, and personal, subjective remarks made by bloggers / YouTube celebrities, etc., do not meet these criteria unless they draw evidence from sources that do.

COURTEOUS: Avoid swearing/name-calling please. Let's keep this mature.

_____________________________________

The debate is designed to follow this structure~

| ROUND I |
- State POV (Pro/Con)
- Agree to terms of conduct specified in this post
- DO NOT yet make arguments beyond opinion summary

| ROUND II |
- Provide summary of general arguments
- Provide evidence for general arguments
- DO NOT yet respond to opponent's arguments


| ROUND III |
- Respond to general arguments of opposing party
- Provide evidence for counter-arguments
- Free to provide fresh arguments

| ROUND IV |
- Respond to & make arguments
- Provide evidence
- Free to provide fresh arguments
- After this round, no new arguments accepted, so start wrapping it up...

| ROUND V |
- NO NEW arguments accepted
- Respond to any argument that has not previously been mutually recognized as proven to be true/false
- Don't bring back a counter-argument that both sides agree has been previously disproven
- Make closing argument / final statement
- Provide evidence
- This is the structure of the final round should a previous round be designated as such due to an unforeseen brevity in the debate.

_____________________________________


{ POINT OF VIEW }

As Pro/Yes to the topic: "Is Homosexuality Objectively Disordered?" I will be arguing that homosexuality is an objectively disordered condition and is not innate.

I believe that people are not born with an innate lust for members of the same gender, and those that do have such tendencies can overcome them. Furthermore, I believe that the "gay rights" movement is primarily about garnering support for hamful, deviant behavior through pretenses, deceptive semantics and blatant lies.

As such, I consider homosexuality to be intrinsically disordered - homosexual attraction and conduct alike.

I look forward to an educated opposing opinion, and thank the user Imagination for introducing me to this style of debate presentation.
Soldus

Con

I accept the debate and I will be arguing con: that homosexuality is NOT objectively disordered.
Debate Round No. 1
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

Thank you for accepting this debate. I look forward to a fun and intelligent debate with you. I will now present my general arguments.

I. Gay sex doesn’t make sense from a physiological, biological or evolutionary point of view.
It’s a self-evident fact that humans, as a species, are heterosexual in nature. Otherwise, our species would cease to exist.
The reproductive organs are obviously designed for sex between a male and female, not between two males or two females.

II. People who have homosexual tendencies can overcome them.

All homosexuals, with the proper motivation, can restore natural heterosexual desires. (1)
106 homosexuals were treated for nine years in a study directed by psychiatrist Irving Bieber. 29 of those participating in the study became exclusively heterosexual. Bieber had this to say about the study:
Although this change may be more easily accomplished by some than by others, in our judgment a heterosexual shift is a possibility for all homosexuals who are strongly motivated to change.

III. The “gay rights” movement is based on dishonesty.

The redefining of homosexuality in the DSM was not a result of scientific evidence. Throughout history, Psychiatry has generally taken for granted that homosexuality is a disorder, and numerous studies and large amounts of evidence support this fact.
The redefining of homosexuality wasn’t a result of political pressure, either. It came about directly as a result of an emotional experience Robert Spitzer had at a homosexual party; nothing whatsoever to do with science or facts. The activists pressuring the American Psychiatry Association in 1973 only had two studies in their defense, and these weren’t even taken into account the day the DSM was edited. (2)

(1) Irving Bieber et al., Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study (New York: Basic Books, 1962)
(2) http://www.thisamericanlife.org...

Soldus

Con

I. Homosexuality has been recorded in several species of animals.
Homosexual activity is common among several non-human animals. Ecologist LW Braithwaite observed that roughly 25% of all male black swans would often form sexual pairings. In addition, the male swans would join a female to lay an egg, then chase the female off to raise the egg themselves [1]. Also, in 2003 Dr. Charles E. Roselli et al. found that 8% of rams had a homosexual orientation. Upon further investigation, Roselli and his team found that rams that displayed homosexual behavior had a region of the brain, named the "ovine Sexually Dimporhic Nucleus" (oSDN) to be half the size of that of heterosexual rams.

[1] Braithwaite, L. W., 'Ecological studies of the Black Swan III – Behaviour and social organization', Australian Wildlife Research 8, 1981: 134-146
[2] Roselli, Charles E.; Kay Larkin, John A. Resko, John N. Stellflug and Fred Stormshak (2004,). "The Volume of a Sexually Dimorphic Nucleus in the Ovine Medial Preoptic Area/Anterior Hypothalamus Varies with Sexual Partner Preference". Journal ofEndocrinology, Endocrine Society, Bethesda, MD 145 (2): 478–483.

II. Homosexuality is innate and immutable
Homosexuality is not a choice and is most likely caused by the influence of prenatal hormones. In a 1990 study, Drs. D.F. Swaab and M.A Hoffman discovered that there are distinct differences between the brain structure of a homosexual man and that of a heterosexual man, leading to the inference that there is a difference in the way the human brain is formed during gestation [3]. Supporting this, Swedish physicians Ivanka Savic and Per Lindström found that the brain structure and sizing of a homosexual man is almost identical to a heterosexual female's brain, while the brain of a lesbian bears striking resemblances to a heterosexual man's [4]. These characteristic differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals lends weight to the hypothesis that homosexuality is an inborn trait that is developed prenatally.

[3] Swaab, D.F., and M.A. Hofman. 1990. An enlarged suprachiasmatic nucleus in homosexual men. Brain Research 537(1-2): 141-148.
[4] Savic, Ivanka, and Per Lindström. 2008. PET and MRI show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States 105: 9403-9408.
Debate Round No. 2
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

I thank my opponent for his response.

{ COUNTER-ARGUMENT I: Homosexuality has been recorded in several species of animals }


Pedophilia has also been recorded in animals, (1) but it doesn't mean pedophilia isn't objectively disordered.

{ COUNTER-ARGUMENT II: Homosexuality is innate and immutable }


My opponent claims that "Homosexuality is not a choice", but this is false, and Irving Bieber's study proves this. (4)

Con says that "D.F. Swaab and M.A Hoffman discovered [...] distinct differences between the brain structure of a homosexual man [that died of AIDS] and that of a heterosexual man [who died of AIDS]", namely, an enlarged SCN. However, this doesn't prove that homosexuality is innate or immutable. Con's own source even admits that "[A]n enlarged SCN may be related to [...] the level of sexual activity rather than to homosexuality [...]", and goes on to say that "[t]he relationship between a large SCN and homosexuality is, of course, not necessarily a casual one." (2)

Con also says that "Swedish physicians [...] found that the brain structure and sizing of a homosexual man is almost identical to a heterosexual female's brain", which is false. Not enough is known about the structure of the human brain to infer this! The study found brain similarities between homosexual men and heterosexual women in respect to only two variables. The researchers admit that "[t]he mechanisms behind the present observations are unknown", "[t]he present study does not allow narrowing of potential explanations, which are probably multifactorial", and point out that environmental effects must be taken into account. The study itself doesn't even conclude that the variations in brain structure and size are a cause of homosexuality! (3)

(1) H. Kruuk, The Spotted Hyena, (University of Chicago Press, 1972), p. 232
(2) Swaab, D.F., and M.A. Hofman. 1990. An enlarged suprachiasmatic nucleus in homosexual men. Brain Research.
(3) Savic, Ivanka, and Per Lindström. 2008. PET and MRI show differences in cerebral asymmetry and functional connectivity between homo- and heterosexual subjects. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States 105: 9403-9408.
(4) Irving Bieber et al., Homosexuality: A Psychoanalytic Study (New York: Basic Books, 1962)
Soldus

Con

Counter point I.
My opponent fails to make an argument in his first statement. He is merely stating loosely related facts rather than making a premise and drawing a conclusion from it; thus, his first point is moot.

Counter point II.
The studies that conclude that homosexuality can be "overcome" are often poorly recorded, always giving different results. For example, in his 1966 study, M.P. Feldman claimed a 58% success rate [1]; however, in his own study, Irving Bieber only had a 27% success rate [2]. Furthermore, every major medical health association in the United States states that homosexuality is a normal variance of human sexuality and that any attempt to change it through reparative therapy can be mentally and physically damaging to a patient. These institutions include: the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Association of School Psychologists [3].

Counter point III.
My opponent's final argument is completely irrelevant to the premise of the argument that homosexuality is objectively disordered. Debating about the former definition of homosexuality is arguing semantics, not arguing the actual topic of the debate.

[1,2] Haldeman, Douglas C. (1991), "Sexual orientation conversion therapy for gay men and lesbians: A scientific examination", in Gonsiorek, John; Weinrich, James, Homosexuality: Research Implications for Public Policy, Newbury Park, California: Sage Publications, Inc, ISBN 0-8039-3764-4

[3] "Homosexuality and Adolesence", Pediatrics, Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics 92 (4): 631–634, 1993, retrieved 2007-08-28
Debate Round No. 3
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

You have not attempted to refute my first argument from round 2, which, in summary, states that homosexuality is disordered from a biological, evolutionary, and scientific point of view; thus, objectively disordered. If you do not address it before this debate ends, you concede it.

Counter-Point I.

I concede that homosexual activity has been observed in animals, but this has no bearing on the fact that homosexuality is objectively disordered in humans.

Counter-Point II.

The study I presented disproves your premise that "homosexuality is not a choice" and it is not poorly recorded.

Con says that "[E]very major medical health association in the United States states that homosexuality is a normal variance of human sexuality and that any attempt to change it through reparative therapy can be mentally and physically damaging to a patient."

First of all, the criteria for whether or not a certain form of behavior is a disorder has nothing to do with the level of risk associated with changing it.

Secondly, I challenge your claim that "the American Medical Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, [...] and the Association of School Psychologists" all "[state] that homosexuality is a normal variance of human sexuality and that any attempt to change it through reparative therapy can be mentally and physically damaging to a patient." Until you can back this claim up with sources representing each of these institutions, these are merely assumptions, and therefore moot.

Counter-Point III.

I may be arguing semantics, but my argument is still valid per the rules in round 1 that I laid out. Since the declassification of homosexuality as a disorder "involved the out-of-hand and peremptory disregard and dismissal not only of hundreds of psychiatric and psychoanalytic research papers and reports, but other serious studies by groups of psychiatrists, psychologists and educators over [...] seventy years", (3) it is specious reasoning, and thus, invalid. If a scientific definition is altered because of non-scientific reasons, it is objectively invalid, unless my opponent wants to argue that science is not objective.

Before homosexuality was actually removed from the DSM, it was changed to "sexual orientation disturbance." But guess what? The DSM itself admitted, at the time, that this redefining of homosexuality didn't make sense! According to a footnote on the same page on which "sexual orientation disturbance" was added:
"This term (sexual orientation disturbance) and its definition are inconsistent with the change in thinking that led to the substitution of Sexual Orientation Disturbance for Homosexuality in the list below. However, since no specific recommendations were made for changing this category or its definition, this category remains unchanged for the time being." (emphasis mine)
This clearly warrants a semantical argument over homosexuality, as per my rules in round 1 that we both agreed to.

I trust the voters are satisfied with my recent refutations of your arguments, and I will now present new ones.

IV. Homosexuality is a disorder based on it's medical consequences alone.

In the words of Kathleen Melonakos, M.A., R.N., author of Saunders Pocket Reference for Nurses: (4) "I am certain--in light of my clinical experience, and since doing considerable amount of studying about it since that time--that homosexuality is neither normal nor benign; rather, it is a lethal behavioral addiction". She says there is "solid, irrefutable evidence that there are lethal consequences of engaging in the defining features of male homosexuality--that is, promiscuity and anal intercourse." (2) Engaging in anal intercourse increases the risk of anal cancer by 4000%. (5) Homosexual activity makes a person exceptionally vulnerable to the following:

Classical sexually transmitted diseases (gonorrhea, infections with Chlamydia trachomatis, syphilis, herpes simplex infections, genital warts, pubic lice, scabies); enteric diseases (infections with Shigella species, Campylobacter jejuni, Entamoeba histolytica, Giardia lamblia, ["gay bowel disease"], Hepatitis A, B, C, D, and cytomegalovirus); trauma (related to and/or resulting in fecal incontinence, hemorroids, anal fissure, foreign bodies lodged in the rectum, rectosigmoid tears, allergic proctitis, penile edema, chemical sinusitis, inhaled nitrite burns, and sexual assault of the male patient); and the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS). (6)

Homosexuality can reduce the lifspan of it's active participants by 40%. (7) Homosexuality is more deadly than smoking, alcoholism, or drug addiction. (2)

Homosexuality is objectively disordered.

I await my opponent's rebuttals.

(1) Foster, Judy et al. Social Perspectives in Mental Health: Developing Social Models to Understand and Work with Mental Distress (London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2005. Print.) p. 170
(2) http://www.wf-f.org...
(3) the Group for the Advancement of Psychiatry Report, 1955; the New York Academy of Medicine Report, 1964; the Task Force Report of the New York County District Branch A.P.A. 1970-72
(4) Melonakos, Kathleen, Saunders Pocket Reference for Nurses, Philadelphia: Saunders, 1990, (2nd ed)., with Sheryl Michelson, 1995.
(5) Fenger, C. "Anal Neoplasia and Its Precursors: Facts and Controversies," Seminars in Diagnostic Pathology 8, no. 3, August 1991, pp.190-201; Daling, J.R. et al., "Sexual Practices, Sexually Transmitted Diseases, and the Incidence of Anal Cancer," New England Journal of Medicine 317, no.16, 15 October 1987, pp. 973-77; Holly, E.A. et al., "Anal Cancer Incidence: Genital Warts, Anal Fissure or Fistula, Hemorrhoids, and Smoking," Journal of the National Cancer Institute 81, no. 22, November 1989, pp. 1726-31; Daling, J.R. et.al, "Correlates of Homosexual Behavior and the Incidence of Anal Cancer," Journal of the American Medical Association 247, no.14, 9 April 1982, pp. 1988-90; Cooper, H.S., Patchefsky, A.S. and Marks, G., "Cloacogenic Carcinoma of the Anorectum in Homosexual Men: An Observation of Four Cases"; Diseases of the Colon and Rectum 22, no. 8, 1979, pp. 557-58. Also see Between the Lines, Michigan's statewide gay newspaper, reporting on the risk of anal cancer for men who have sex with men, http://www.afa.net...
(6) W.E. Owen Jr., "Medical Problems of the Homosexual Adolescent," Journal of Adolescent Health Care6, No.4, July 1985, pp. 278-85.
(7) Mr. Trey Kern, President of the Citizen's for Parent Rights, in Pasadena, Maryland has collected an impressive amount data on studies documenting the diminished lifespan of active homosexuals. See www.cprmd.org, "Homosexual Myths: Homosexuals Live Long Lives, Fact Sheet. Studies include: (G. Tardieu, 1858; M. Hirschfield, 1914, Kinsey, 1930's, 1940's; Mattachine Society, 1950's: Berger, 1960's, Kinsey Institute, 1969; Spada Report 1978; M. Mendola, 1979; Cameron, Playfair, Wellum, 1994; Hogg, R.S., et. al, International Journal of Epidemiology, 1997; Cameron, P, Cameron, K, Playfair, WL., Psychological Reports, 1998.
Soldus

Con

*I will not refute nor will I concede to your "argument" from round 2 as, by logical standards, it is not an argument, and as such, cannot be refuted.*

Counter Point I.
It's ridiculous to conclude that humans are exclusive from the rest of the animal kingdom. Saying that homosexuality is not a disorder in animals but is in humans is equivalent to saying that diabetes is a disease in humans, but it is not in animals.

Counter Point II.
Your study is as poorly recorded and flawed as I said it was. In his study, Irving Bieber concluded that there was a possibility that homosexuals could change their orientation; however, his methodology was completely flawed. The men used in his study were already mental health patients: 28 were schizophrenic, 31 were neurotic and 42 had character disorders. Among this group, 90% were quoted as saying that they wished to "conceal their sexuality," and 64% wanted to "cure" their homosexuality. Irving completely ignores the entire homosexual population that does not have a mental disorder or a desire to be heterosexual, leading to a skewed result. When criticized for his poor methodology, Bieber defended his work saying that it applied to the general population [1]. This is a prime example of generalization; it's logically impossible to conclude that his sample of 106 men could apply to all homosexual men.

If you had closely read what I had written, you would have seen that I did not at any point say that the risk factor involved determined whether a behavior was a disorder; I was rebutting your argument that homosexuality was a choice that could be overcome, showing that it was not necessary or beneficial.

[1] Lewes, Kenneth. The Psychoanalytic Theory of Male Homosexuality. New York: Meridian, pp. 184, 206-211

American Medical Association: https://www.ama-assn.org...
American Psychiatric Association and American Psychological Association: http://www.apa.org...
National Association of Social Workers: http://www.clgs.org...
American Academy of Pediatrics: http://www.clgs.org...;
Association of School Psychologists: http://www.nasponline.org...;

Counter Point III.
I concede to my opponent that it is invalid to change a scientific definition for non-scientific reasons; however, the definition of the word is irrelevant in this case, as the definition applied to it does not necessitate that that is what it truly is i.e. homosexuality is not necessarily a disorder because it has been classified as such in the past. To clarify my point about the irrelevance of the definition, I quote William Shakespeare, "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

My opponent swings with a double-edged sword. He says, "The DSM itself admitted, at the time, that this redefining of homosexuality didn't make sense!" My opponent disregards the fact that the perception of things change as time moves on. For example, it is well known that during the Medæval period it was considered evil or as one my say "disordered" to be left-handed; however, we know well enough that one's handedness does not determine his morals. It's in this simple fact of the evolution of perceptions that it is impossible to say that homosexuality is objectively disordered, because what is considered disordered is subjective, relative to the time period.

Counter point IV.
My opponent's fourth argument is flawed from the very title, which reads, "Homosexuality is a disorder based on [sic] it's medical consequences alone." My opponent then goes on to provide statistics of the negative health effects of anal intercourse and that, "[h]omosexuality is more deadly than smoking, alcoholism or drug addiction." The argument is flawed because homosexuality is defined as physical or mental attraction to members of the same sex. This does not involve sexual activity, of which my opponent's entire fourth argument is based.

Lastly, my opponent's sources need be called into question. In a debate it is necessary to have one's sources be as unbiased as possible to have a fair, objective argument. My opponent uses sources that are greatly slanted toward an anti-gay/Christian rhetoric. If my oponnent wishes to label homosexuality as an objective disorder, he should use objective research.

I will not provide any further arguments as the onus probandi of the debate is on the pro, as he is the one making the claim.
Debate Round No. 4
GarretKadeDupre

Pro

Before I continue to refute my opponent's arguments, I must thank him for this fun debate and his intelligent responses.

Con says that he "will not refute [...]or concede to [my] "argument" from round 2 as, by logical standards, it is not an argument", and thus concedes my argument, which is an argument by logical standards. Here it is again, paraphrased:

Gay sex doesn't make sense from a physiological, biological or evolutionary standpoint because the reproductive organs are obviously designed for heterosexual activity, not homosexual activity. Furthermore, homosexual behavior doesn't promote the survival or reproduction of heterosexual species. "If [homosexuality] were genetically dictated, it would have bred itself out of the population in only several generations, and wouldn't’t be around today." (4) If Con doesn't address this argument, he concedes it.

Counter-Point I. Con attacks a couple strawmen. I never said that "humans are exclusive from the rest of the animal kingdom" or "that homosexuality is not a disorder in animals".

Counter-Point II. Con claims that Bieber's "methodology was completely flawed" because all the participants were "mental health patients" but ignores the fact that mental health problems go hand in hand with homosexuality! According to the Journal of Human Sexuality: (7)

"[A] score of mental health conditions in almost every DSM category are present in the general [homosexual] population at rates three or more times greater than in the heterosexual population. These conditions include bipolar disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and schizophrenia, but more predominantly consist of mood disorders, depression, substance abuse, and suicidality."

Homosexuals are more than 7 times more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexuals. (1) Also, according to J. Michael Bailey, PsyD: "[H]omosexual people are at substantially higher risk for [...] emotional problems, including suicidality, major depression, and anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, and nicotine dependence[...]" (2) Homosexuals of both genders are much more likely to suffer from medical, psychological and relational problems than heterosexuals; the largest group of STD victims is composed 100% of homosexuals, and over 30% of homosexuals abuse drugs. Furthermore, social influences don't cause most of these problems. (6)

Con falsely claims that he "[rebutted my] argument that homosexuality was a choice that could be overcome" by "showing that it was not necessary or beneficial." However, saying that overcoming homosexuality is not necessary or beneficial does not prove that overcoming homosexuality is impossible; in fact, this means Con concedes that homosexuality is a choice that can be overcome! I hope you, the voter, can see Con's contradiction here.

Let me be clear: With the proper motivation, homosexuals can restore natural heterosexual desires and overcome homosexuality. According to Elaine Siegel, PhD: "[T]he usual rite of coming out of the closet can be an enforced trauma, preventing further psychological growth. [...] [M]en have found their full masculine selves during [Doctor Joseph Nicolosi's reparative] therapy." (3)

Allow me to expand on my debunking of Con's false assumption that "Homosexuality is innate and immutable" with some quotes from reputable sources:

"Homosexuality occurs too frequently to be caused by a faulty pre-natal developmental process, so it is not innate". (emphasis mine)
"[A]ny genetic influences on homosexuality are weak and indirect and about 10% of total effects [and exert no more influence on homosexuality than they do on any other type of behavior]."
"[A]ny attempt to argue the existence of a “homosexual gene" [...] is nonsense". (4) (emphasis mine)
"Homosexuality is mostly neither innate nor directly a matter of upbringing or social factors, but rather results from unique reactions to personal experiences. This conclusion is not likely to change with future research." (8) (emphasis mine)

Counter-Point III. Con claims that "it is impossible to say that homosexuality is objectively disordered, because what is considered disordered is subjective, relative to the time period." With this argument, he implies that there is no such thing as objectively disordered behavior; therefore, Con thinks that pedophile behavior is not objectively disordered! Pedophile behavior, however, is objectively disordered regardless of what time period it occurs in, so Con is wrong.

Counter-Point IV. Con calls my argument flawed because the definition of homosexuality doesn't involve sexual behavior. This is false. The definition of homosexuality contains homosexual intercourse. (5) Thus, my argument still stands unrefuted: Homosexuality is a disorder based on it's medical consequences alone.

Con then proceeds to call into question the validity of my sources by saying they are "greatly slanted toward an anti-gay/Christian rhetoric", but fails to point out a single one of my sources, and doesn't even attempt to demonstrate how they meet his description. So as of now, this is merely Con's assumption, and a failed attempt to nullify my sources.

I have sufficiently demonstrated that homosexuality is a disorder according to objective standards, and thus proved my premise. Con has failed to refute any of my main points with objective research.

Thank you everyone.

(1) Gary Remafedi, MD, MPH, Simone French, PhD, Mary Story, PhD, Michael D. Resnick, PhD, and Robert Blum, MD, PhD. The Relationship between Suicide Risk and Sexual Orientation: Results of a Population-Based Study. 1998.
(2) http://narth.com...
(3) http://narth.com...
(4) Whitehead, Neil. My Genes Made Me Do It! - Homosexuality and the scientific evidence. Huntington House Pub, 1999.
(5) http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu...
(6) http://www.narth.com...
(7) Whitehead, Neil. Homosexualities and Co-Morbidities: Therapeutic Research and Implications. Journal of Human Sexuality 2:124-175, 2010.
(8) Whitehead, Neil. Neither Genes nor Choice: Same-Sex Attraction Is Mostly a Unique Reaction to Environmental Factors. Journal of Human Sexuality 3:81-114 (2011).

Soldus

Con

Before I begin, I'd like to thank my opponent for a riveting and insightful debate.

Pro ammends his previous statement into an actual argument; however, it is his original point that fails as an argument, and as such, any attempt to change it creates a diochtomy of what is currently and what was formerly an argument.

Counter Point I.
I concede that pro did not state his opinion on whether or not homosexuality was a disorder in animals as well as humans.

Counter Point II.
Pro believes that homosexuality is the cause of mental disorders, a higher likelihood of suicide and would lead to anxiety, depression and substance abuse. However, pro neglects the fact that these afflictions are caused by fear of rejection by family and peers, and from victimization of LGBT citizens [1]. The CDC states that, "Negative attitudes about homosexuality can lead to rejection by friends and family, discriminatory acts and violence that harm specific individuals, and laws and policies that adversely affect the lives of many people; this can have damaging effects on the health of MSM and other sexual minorities," and that negative attitudes about homosexuality can, "Limit MSM's ability to access high quality health care that is responsive to health issues of MSM, affect income, employment status, and the ability to get and keep health insurance, contribute to poor mental health and unhealthy behaviors, such as substance abuse, risky sexual behaviors, and suicide attempts, affect MSM's ability to establish and maintain long-term same-sex relationships that reduce HIV & STD risk and make it difficult for some MSM to be open about same-sex behaviors with others, which can increase stress, limit social support, and negatively affect health." [1] This is particularly prominent among LGBT adolescents; a 2010 study administered by Concordia University found that LGBT adolescents who lived in a homophobic enviroment displayed a higher rate of internalized homophobia which, in turn, led to a greater production of the stress hormone "cortisol," leading to higher rates of depression, anxiety and suicidal thoughts [2]. In summary, homosexuality is not the cause of mental/physical afflictions, it is the hostile environment around homosexuals that causes them.

There is no conclusive evidence that sexual orientation can be changed. In all reparative therapy, the goal is to stop LGBT people from feeling their homosexual desires, so all reparative therapy works around suppressing the homosexual desires rather than attempting to foster heterosexual desires [3]. Also, Alan Chambers, president of Exodus International, a well-known reparative therapy clinic, admitted that reparative therapy does not work [4].

Pro's reputable sources are all taken from the same person who states that it is nonsense for a gay gene to exist; however, a 1993 study found that homosexual brothers had a unique genetic marker on the Xq28 region of the X chromosome, suggesting a correlation between the two [5]. While this should not be taken as evidence that a "gay gene" exists, it should be considered as a possible influence on sexual orientation.

[1] http://www.cdc.gov...;
[2] http://www.sciencedaily.com...;
[3] http://www.fresnostate.edu...;
[4] http://www.hrc.org...;
[5] http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...;

Counter Point III.
Pro is correct when he says that I imply that there is no such thing as objective disorder because there isn't; however, pro demerits my argument due to a strawman fallacy when he commits one just as grave. He says, "...con thinks that pedophile behavior is not objectively disordered!" Pro makes claim that because I state that there is no such thing as objectively disordered behavior, I therefore think that pedophilia is not objectively disordered. He then goes on to say that pedophilia is objectively disordered. If were are to take the conjecture of the Bible as true, then we must accept that pedophilia was permissible at the time the book was written. According to Hebrew scripture, the typical age of the betrothal of a young girl was roughly 12 years old, so the Virgin Mary was roughly 12-14 when she became pregnant. Joseph is thought to have been in his late teens onward, as he is believed to have died by the time Jesus began his ministry [6]. While Mary and Joseph did not have sex, their relationship is reflective of marriages of the time. Also, in the Qu'ran, Muhammad is betrothed to Aisha when she is 6 years old, at which point he is in his thirties, they then consummate their marriage when she turns nine [7]. Perceptions change, so there is no definite objectivity when it comes to what is considered a disorder and what is not.

[6] http://campus.udayton.edu...;
[7] D. A. Spellberg, Politics, Gender, and the Islamic Past: the Legacy of A'isha bint Abi Bakr, Columbia University Press, 1994, p. 40

Counter Point IV.
I agree that by some definitions homosexuality is defined as attraction and as sexual intercourse, but that is an argument of semantics so I'll not bother debating that because in the end no possible conclusion can be reached on either side.

As for the slant of Pro's sources relative to the ones I was criticizing (those being the sources he used in round 4); Pro did not even use the first source he cited, his second source is the "Women for Faith & Family" whose entire article hinges on homosexuality being a disorder. His third source is valid, despite the fact that it was most recently published in 1972. In his fourth source, he cites Kathleen Melonakos, the founder of the Delaware Family Foundation, a Christian group that actively opposes same-sex marriage. I can't make sense of his fifth source as it appears to be roughly 8 different sources compiled into one citation. In his sixth source, Pro fails to mention that every disease or medical affliction that can be acrued as a result of homosexual activity can also come as a result of heterosexual activity. Finally, in his seventh source, he cites the Citizens for Parental Rights. On the CPR homepage, it clearly states that they maintain a Judeo-Christian based value system [8].

[8] http://citizensforparentalrights.org...;

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 5
22 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 4 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
By the way, wiploc, my 3rd opening argument was to act as a foundation, so to speak, to build upon in case I needed to defend against deceptive semantics from my opponent. However, he never used this approach, so it wasn't really useful.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 4 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
Thanks wiploc.
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
It's not hard to say, "The burden of proof will be shared." When you want the burden shared, you should be explicit. But Pro came pretty close:

: CON: My opponent will be expected to prove that homosexuality is not objectively disordered.

Con refuted Pro's arguments, such as they were, but didn't meet his own burden of proof.

Persuasion: tied.

: I. Gay sex doesn"t make sense from a physiological, biological or evolutionary point of view.

Pro states this bald claim, but he doesn't argue it. That leaves nothing for Con to refute. (Pro did attempt to justify this claim in the final round. While I'm not voting conduct for withholding arguments until the final round, neither am I entertaining arguments thus withheld.)

Pro claims that homosexuality, if natural, would be extinguished by evolution within a few generations. But homosexual behavior is much more than a few generations old, so this seems self-refuting. Con hinted at a refutation by mentioning homosexual animals. Hinted refutation is all Pro enabled, because Pro didn't articulate an argument supporting his claim, and didn't say what the claim had to do with the resolution.

: II. People who have homosexual tendencies can overcome them.

Con made a counter-claim. Even if I can't judge whose expert is correct, Pro's claim has been effectively refuted. One claim on one side, an opposite claim on the other; nobody wins. What I want to know is what this has to do with objective disorder. Perhaps nothing.

: III. The "gay rights" movement is based on dishonesty.
Claim and counter-claim equals a tie on this point too. Even if someone had prevailed on this point, it would have no apparent link to the resolution. Does Pro think mistreating gays, spreading prejudice against them, is objectively ordered? We don't know. We don't know why he brought it up.
Posted by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
GarretKadeDupre wrote:
: Can someone counter Mangani's vote-bomb? Please and thank you.

Consider Wolfman's vote a counter. Either that, or ask that both of them be countered.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 4 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
Can someone counter Mangani's vote-bomb? Please and thank you.
Posted by Kinesis 4 years ago
Kinesis
lol @ all the votebombing/countervotebombing.
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 4 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
thanks 1devilsadvocate!
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 4 years ago
GarretKadeDupre
Thanks for your honesty, likespeace!
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
This was my original RFD, awarding +3 to Con and +2 to Soldus. I've temporarily replaced it with a COUNTER vote due to a votebomb. I want Pro to lose.. the right way. ;)

Does homosexuality per se "impact multiple life areas and/or create distress for the person"? Is it "inappropriate behavior"? While Pro shows the choice carries many negative consequences, Con points out most of these are due to the societal stigma and are not defining characteristics. That stigma is changing in America--we are fortunately no longer the nation we were 75 years ago. We are left with the higher risk of anal cancer associated with anal sex, which applies only to many male homosexuals, and anal cancer is apparently quite rare. There are many activities that carry higher risks that society engages in that do not constitute disorders--such as eating fast food, engaging in vaginal sex vs. oral sex, or wreck diving. Pro hasn't convinced me homosexuality increases risk to the point that it should be a disorder. Sources to Pro for Con's weak citing of associations that agree with him.
Posted by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
Pro is definitely getting better at debating. If I may offer one small suggestion, defining key terms in round one--such as "objective disorder" and "homosexuality"--can help the debate and verdict stay focused on the meat of the matter rather than being sidetracked with semantics. In this case, both what constitutes a disorder and what constitutes homosexuality were open to interpretation. When most people favor your opponent's position out of the starting gate, you want to limit that.
14 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by Skepsikyma 4 years ago
Skepsikyma
GarretKadeDupreSoldusTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: Con adequately refuted all of Pro's debates in the final round. Sources to Con due to Pro's heavy reliance on studies which demonstrate some of the most egregious examples of selection bias I've ever come across. Pro fails to address this.
Vote Placed by Locke33 4 years ago
Locke33
GarretKadeDupreSoldusTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:52 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro took this I think my previous options might have helped but he would have won without.
Vote Placed by wiploc 4 years ago
wiploc
GarretKadeDupreSoldusTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments
Vote Placed by wolfman4711 4 years ago
wolfman4711
GarretKadeDupreSoldusTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: I agree with garret on pretty much everything he has said. Soldus has done a poor job trying to convince me
Vote Placed by Mangani 4 years ago
Mangani
GarretKadeDupreSoldusTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Reasons for voting decision: I read this debate thinking I was going to read an objective debate regarding homosexuality. Instead, Pro presents very controversial positions from very controversial sources, and never attempts to back his position logically with unbiased sources. I believe he was not only extremely offensive to the gay community, but condescending and insulting of the intelligence of the audience. Con made very clear and sourced arguments. His arguments were sound, and not adequately rebutted. Pro came off as having a very nasty agenda... I'm still shaking my head...
Vote Placed by 16kadams 4 years ago
16kadams
GarretKadeDupreSoldusTied
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: Cool debate. The final rounds both sides began to improve. Pro began citing more data and studies in the end to bolster his case. Con argued Beibers study was weak but pro showed how the study is proven by other data points. Con pointed out exodus has conceded on therapy but pro showed many cases where homosexuals have changed, and how therapy reduces many homosexual desires. Pro presented evidence that many of the actions homosexuals do prove disordered behavior. Con argued it was because of discrimination and such. Pro cited a whitehead study showing it was inherent and could not be changed through other factors. Overall, both sides did well, but pro won. PS, I may have mixed up pro and con in the RFD, I'm not sure, but pro won most points in the debate. Sources tied.
Vote Placed by 1Devilsadvocate 4 years ago
1Devilsadvocate
GarretKadeDupreSoldusTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60 
Reasons for voting decision: Counter Jarhyn
Vote Placed by Jarhyn 4 years ago
Jarhyn
GarretKadeDupreSoldusTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: CV likespeace. CII provided sufficient reason for a 6 point vote, namely PRO's wasting of all of our time, and his arguing of a clearly scientific topic like biology with clearly no understanding of the subject matter. S&G being the one point at which they are tied, I shall not counter.
Vote Placed by Grantmac18 4 years ago
Grantmac18
GarretKadeDupreSoldusTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Conduct and S&G were equally matched, Con's victory came by providing biological evidence stating that homosexuality is, in fact, innate. Sources were equally lacking: dead links, biased studies, articles lacking credibility, statements out of context, etc. Pro's resolution indebted him with an unnecessarily heavy burden. Sensitivity surrounding this issue will likely result in a votebomb for Con, one such occurrence can already be observed below.
Vote Placed by likespeace 4 years ago
likespeace
GarretKadeDupreSoldusTied
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 Checkmark--1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:70 
Reasons for voting decision: COUNTER CIIReligion. He doesn't provide an RFD for his 7-point vote.