The Instigator
Retrospace18
Con (against)
Winning
46 Points
The Contender
nerdyandnotsoproud
Pro (for)
Losing
45 Points

Is Homosexuality wrong?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/29/2007 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 3,267 times Debate No: 125
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (40)
Votes (30)

 

Retrospace18

Con

This question has been raised in many different forms, on this site. Mostly in the form of "Should gay marriage be allowed?". But never to my knowledge has it been discussed directly. So the questions stands. "Is Homosexuality wrong?"

Homosexuality is not wrong.

1)Many people, automatically bring up the bible, when faced with this question. And thats fine, for those that believe the bible. But, what about those that dont? Sure the bible has been used to set the foundations of countries and to settle court cases, but i ask you, what grounds does the bible hold, over those that dont believe in it? Is it right to say that the bible should define if a man can love another man, even if those men do not believe in the bible?I think not.

2)If homosexuality is wrong and not natural, why have there been cases of homosexuality among animals?

"But, actually, some same-sex birds do do it. So do beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, and orangutans. Zoologists are discovering that homosexual and bisexual activity is not unknown within the animal kingdom. "

http://news.nationalgeographic.com...

Feel free to read the rest of the article, is mentions that sex is suppose to be enjoyable and fun, and that maybe animals have picked up on this. And instead of having sex to reproduce , they simply do it for pleasure. Since animals do not have birth control and condoms, they have sex with the same sex to pleasure themselves...sounds rather smart in my opinion.

This article also brings up that "The bottom line is that anything that happens in other primates, and particularly other apes, is likely to have strong evolutionary continuity with what happens in humans." So whos to say that human homosexuality is not a result of evolution?

3)The next argument would be, that homosexuality is not healthy. It is a common fact that more diseases are spread by homosexual pairs than by "straight" pairs. But ironically, smoking, drinking, and watching television, are all marked unhealthy. But there are no outrages from the church and government to stop them, now is there? Why? Because they make money by selling those products. So maybe homosexuality is marked , unhealthy, because its not profitable to the government.

4)I ask, why is homosexuality wrong? Why must some people oppose it? Is religion really that powerful, or are people just not willing to accept change? If you say religion, then i ask you, is this the same religion that says god loves us all the same amount, to love your enemy, and that jesus cared so much for sinners that he died on the cross for them? If you're unwilling to accept change, i ask why you deny the opportunity to spread love. If two men love each other, what does it matter? as long as there is love.
nerdyandnotsoproud

Pro

Homosexuality is not right.

If we look at homosexuality from a scientific stand point, we see that it is an incoherent as well as useless institution in nature. Every living organism instinctively lives for the sole purpose of continuing and passing on their "blood-line". The continuation and production of life has been, and always will be the most important aspect of life. Homosexuality on the other hand, does nothing to promote the lineage of a certain specie or organism. Homosexuality, in an extreme fashion, can be analogous to a virus or disease; it gives no merit to the human race (as well to all other animals, for that matter) and only facilitates a discontinuation of life, the most crippling threat to any living matter. Though seemingly innocuous, homosexuality, in the long run, can present a catalytic response that can devastate the human race. Such entity can only present itself as "wrong".

One may argue, as you did, that homosexuality is natural and is evident in various animal species. You claim that because it is displayed in the animal kingdom, it must be a normal course of action. Though it is true that homosexuality has been exhibited in nature, it cannot, however, assert that homosexuality is normal and acceptable. There are many examples in nature of evolutionary "trials" that have, in the end, failed to progress. As species evolved over time, there have been developments that did not continue because of the lack of efficiency. It is the same concept as Darwin's assertion of the survival of the fittest. Thus the same could be said about homosexuality; it is just an evolutionary mistake.

To be frank, I was puzzled by your third choice of argument. The government or church does not deprecate something solely on its premise of economical value, but rather because it has potential risk for disaster. For instance, if illegal drugs were to be legalized, taxation on the importation and exportation of the drugs would produce a profusion of revenue. Yet the government still insists to prohibit them because of their incontrovertible health risks. Homosexuality is not opposed simply because it creates little to no profit, but because it holds a potential threat in the long run.

Homosexuality is wrong not because most religions are intolerable towards gays and lesbians, but because it goes against the fundamental instinct in all living organisms to reproduce. It brings no merit and is relatively worthless in nature's perspective.
Debate Round No. 1
Retrospace18

Con

Hello nerdy,

Thank you for accepting this debate. I will, before i begin, remind that this debate only has two rounds. I will proceed to break down , your post, in a matter of bullets and quotes. If at any time you feel i've taken your words out of context, please address them as so.

1)"If we look at homosexuality from a scientific stand point, we see that it is an incoherent as well as useless institution in nature."

I agree, but does this make it wrong? Since when has been going to the movies, or "making out" with your girlfriend, been coherent to the survival of a species? Maybe homosexuals find being homosexual fun, with no purpose to reproduce. Similar to the primates i described in round one. In your eyes the purpose of life is to continue life. Maybe in their eyes, its to have fun.

2)"Every living organism instinctively lives for the sole purpose of continuing and passing on their "blood-line"."

I agree, but would like to point out the word instinctively. One of the beauty's of being human is that you can go against your instinct. Instinct tells you not to jump off a bridge, but if you want to, you can. Instinct tells you to flinch when someone throws a fist your way, but you dont have to. Instinct may affect the animal kingdom, but in the homosapien world, we can over come instinct and the taboos along with it.

Another topic on this would be artificial insemination. If the couple agreed on artificial insemination, would homosexuality be wrong? They are continuing life, granted one of the parents is not submitting their genetic material, but the life is still being carried on.

3)"Homosexuality on the other hand, does nothing to promote the lineage of a certain specie or organism."

True, but like i said, neither does watching a movie, or going to a ballgame. What if homosexuality is merely entertainment, wouldn't this make it "ok"?

4)Though seemingly innocuous, homosexuality, in the long run, can present a catalytic response that can devastate the human race. Such entity can only present itself as "wrong".

Thats a little extreme, dont you think? What about artificial insemination? Not all couples are homosexuals, life will continue with or without homosexuality.

5)Though it is true that homosexuality has been exhibited in nature, it cannot, however, assert that homosexuality is normal and acceptable

And who decides what is normal and acceptable? This ties back to religion and politics, whether you like it or not. And please, define normal. Normal in my eyes, is doing what comes naturally, and what the body tells you to do. Many cases of homosexuality at birth have been documented. If the bodies tells you,"Hey you like men", how can you argue with that.

"Although historical studies and purposed treatments have ranged from group counseling to shock therapy, recent research suggests that exposure to an abnormally high or low amount of certain hormones could potentially affect sexual behavior."

Source: http://serendip.brynmawr.edu...

6)"As species evolved over time, there have been developments that did not continue because of the lack of efficiency. It is the same concept as Darwin's assertion of the survival of the fittest."

Even if it is, a flaw in the evolutionary process, its still natural. That only time and nature can "fix". So why not let those with said "flaw" live happily?

7)"The government or church does not deprecate something solely on its premise of economical value, but rather because it has potential risk for disaster."

No, not solely, but it does have a large amount of influence on the decision. Money talks. Ever wonder why war was so popular in the 1940's? Could it be because the economy had crashed from the (1933-1939) dust bowl? And war helped stabilize the economy to get back on its feet? Or was that just a fortunate , and well timed, miracle?

8)"For instance, if illegal drugs were to be legalized, taxation on the importation and exportation of the drugs would produce a profusion of revenue. Yet the government still insists to prohibit them because of their incontrovertible health risks. "

I agree, but sadly homosexuality is not a drug. And the comparison that you are making, serves its purpose, but at the same time, has nothing to do with this. (You could say the same, about my war comment, and i hold you open to do so).

9)"Homosexuality is not opposed simply because it creates little to no profit, but because it holds a potential threat in the long run."

What would this threat be? Human extinction? I've already opened the floor to artificial insemination and the fact that there will always be "straight" couples.

10)"Homosexuality is wrong not because most religions are intolerable towards gays and lesbians, but because it goes against the fundamental instinct in all living organisms to reproduce. "

Theres that word instinct again. Let me ask you, would you say that most animals, (below the level of human thought), run on instinct? If you say yes, then tell me once again why homosexuality is surprisingly common in the animal kingdom? Maybe its not an evolutionary flaw, but is evolution right on course.

Who's not to say that, homosexuality is the opposite of what you think, and in fact is evolution in the making. Maybe its preparing itself for some catastrophic event that will require same sex to mate.

11) "It brings no merit and is relatively worthless in nature's perspective."

Then, once again, why does nature allow it to happen.
nerdyandnotsoproud

Pro

nerdyandnotsoproud forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
40 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by audraxheartsxyou 9 years ago
audraxheartsxyou
I think you took my text in a different perspective paul tigger.
In my opinion, I don't think one day they just woke up and said I think I'm going to be a homosexual today. It simply comes from what they feel for that same sex. Choosing, again in my opinion, I would think wouldn't have anything to do with it.
Also, I know a lot of people that are of the homosexual sex, that would agree.
Posted by CaiMoon 9 years ago
CaiMoon
I wouldn't have time to debate this, but I find this an interesting topic I had to comment on. You two are also great debaters.

Saying homosexuality does nothing for lineage and is therefore worthless is not correct. I read a theory that they serve a purpose by raising abandoned children, which is beneficial. Another purpose for loving others you "aren't supposed to" has benefited the "bisexual" bonoboes, who have virtually no violence among them, instead resolving conflicts with compromise and sex.

Evolution also has its flukes, things that happen that do not detract enough to threaten the species and therefore is maladaptive, or not good enough to strengthen it. Mainly, homosexuality is NOT genetic. It is a result of hormones in the mother and fetus during development. It is a "fluke" of evolving separate genders. This mismatching of hormones also results in "intersexuals," or "hermaphrodites" as they are more well-known. Which does happen quite a lot, but it is fixed in the hospital right away. However, you cannot "fix" or "diagnose" sexual orientation at birth.

Perhaps it doesn't help us, but it doesn't "threaten" us. There will always be straight people that reproduce. And if homosexuality does overtake us, a genetic flaw that results in the wrong amount of hormones etc, then we might not even die out, having a want of children we could decide to "inseminate" ourselves naturally or unnaturally. Anyway, the chance of that is slim.

The hormones also explain why other animals that have separate genders have homosexuals among them.
Posted by paul_tigger 9 years ago
paul_tigger
To audraxheartsxyou:

Feelings is a dangerous territory to which I do not think even homosexuals would agree with you on as feelings are state of conditions and subject to change. For example, feelings like happiness may occur one minute and knowing that your favorite TV show was canceled may cause you sadness the next. So by the virtue that homosexuals have feelings towards homosexuality, you are also implying that it is a matter of choice or set conditions to which they can change once you change the stimulus. Thus making it a matter of choice and not biological to which most homosexuals would argue against. I say most since some who identified as being homosexuals once chose to engage in a heterosexual life-style.
Posted by paul_tigger 9 years ago
paul_tigger
TO Francis:

You are sadly mistaken when you take comments about Shakespeare and Da Vinci being gay. You are only listing information on possible speculations and notions that these men were straight. Without the two having flatly said that they were in love with men, the world may never know. You need to cite your information before stating something and assuming as fact when it isn't.
Posted by francis 9 years ago
francis
in my own opinion, it is not because if this is why does da vinci and shakespeare a part of the worl historydespite the fact that they are considered as homosexuals ?
Posted by bobsatthepub 9 years ago
bobsatthepub
wait re do that quote, that was stupid...
"homosexuals shouldn't debate in this, because they will get their feelings about homosexuality out. Someone who protects homosexuality but isn't homosexual themself should be debating."
That's better... now I feel like an idiot. Don't you love proof reading... AFTER you hit submit.
Posted by bobsatthepub 9 years ago
bobsatthepub
haha, I'm not homosexual VbPeppermint, but it's nice to see you think I am passionate about this argument =)... "homosexual themself should be debating."
now wouldn't that make a good debate.
Posted by audraxheartsxyou 9 years ago
audraxheartsxyou
I don't agree VbPeppermint.

Homosexuality does not come from those things. It simply comes from what they feel. It also doesn't indicate that the person has had sex with an individual of the same sex. Hence, Ashley(girl), cast member from Tila Tequila: A Shot At Love. She was a complete virgin she both said it and you could tell.
Posted by VbPeppermint 9 years ago
VbPeppermint
Homosexuality most likely starts as child abuse, traumatizing experiences and social rejection of the opposite sex. Or staring in the mirror too much. Whatever the reason, homosexuality is sexual, no matter what. Homosexuality indicates that the person had sex with an individual of the same sex, which is sodomy: anal, oral, masturbation and other non-penis to vagina sexual intercourse.
Posted by VbPeppermint 9 years ago
VbPeppermint
bobsatthepub, homosexuals shouldn't debate in this, because they will get their feelings about homosexuality out. Someone who protects homosexuality but isn't homosexual themself should be debating.
30 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by JBlake 9 years ago
JBlake
Retrospace18nerdyandnotsoproudTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Vote Placed by Sludge 9 years ago
Sludge
Retrospace18nerdyandnotsoproudTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by mrmatt505 9 years ago
mrmatt505
Retrospace18nerdyandnotsoproudTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by bdf0827 9 years ago
bdf0827
Retrospace18nerdyandnotsoproudTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by supremecourt101 9 years ago
supremecourt101
Retrospace18nerdyandnotsoproudTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Pidge25 9 years ago
Pidge25
Retrospace18nerdyandnotsoproudTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by BigPlayer098 9 years ago
BigPlayer098
Retrospace18nerdyandnotsoproudTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by sluggerjal 9 years ago
sluggerjal
Retrospace18nerdyandnotsoproudTied
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 Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by CaiMoon 9 years ago
CaiMoon
Retrospace18nerdyandnotsoproudTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by thisearthlyride 9 years ago
thisearthlyride
Retrospace18nerdyandnotsoproudTied
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 Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30