The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Is homosexuality a form of sexual perversion?

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  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/10/2013 Category: Health
Updated: 5 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 9,414 times Debate No: 28791
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (10)
Votes (0)




TOPIC: Is homosexuality a form of sexual perversion?

CON: I will be arguing that homosexuality is not a form of sexual perversion based on scientific evidence.

PRO: My opponent will be expected to prove using scientific evidence that homosexuality is a form of sexual perversion.


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, psychology and morality 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.

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~

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

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

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

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

- 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.



As Con/No to the topic: "Is homosexuality a form of sexual perversion?" I will be arguing that homosexuality is not a form of sexual perversion based on scientific evidence.

I believe that scientific evidence soundly refutes the very archaic notion that homosexuality is a form of sexual perversion, and, although I am personally heterosexual, I was unpleasantly surprised and offended at statements found in several gay marriage debates on the beloved DDO. I have attempted to individually challenge several members who made such assertions, and never received a single response. By opening up the debate it will be interesting to see if anyone making these claims even deems them defensible.

It's not the first time I've heard strangers, politicians, news commentators, and most hurtfully, friends or family, compare – even equate – the love that some of my close friends share with each other, with pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality, and worse. While the topic is touchy for me on a personal level I agree to remain objective in my arguments, which is why I challenge both Pro and myself to base our arguments on scientific evidence. Thank you.




I first want to thank my opponent for opening up this debate. I look forward to a very intersting dialogue to take place that will follow both the course that many will expect it to and as always, courses that will open people's eyes to new ideas.

As stated in the rules, I will refrain from any "faith based opinions." I will also maintain an objective, scientific, philosophic, and legal perspective on this as my opponent has listed as "Valid evidence" must not be disproven by any of these.

For this debate I will be arguing that homosexuality is a form of sexual perversion.

As for my opinion on this topic, I am a heterosexual male, as my opponent is. That said, I do not see homosexuality as morally wrong, however, this debate is not over whether it is morally wrong, but over whether it is a sexual perversion, of which I believe it is.

By the concept, homosexuality is by definition sexual perversion if we are to stick to strictly scientific evidence.


Now, for the scope of this debate sexuality, morality and psychology are very broad subjects as my opponent pointed out. I will not stray from that, and should not have to. However, I hope that in regards to "semantics" my opponent can recognize that while I will not "nitpick" every little thing, semantics in a very relevant manner are important to any debate. Definitions for things must be established because if not then it leads to circular debate and debates in which both parties are saying the same things just in different terms. For the purposes of semantics, I only ask my opponent that when major terms are to come up then minimal statements to their definition are to be used and only in cases where a definition may confuse. The major reason for this is as with any behavioral or sociological conversation, different behaviors and actions that require titles and defintions must be clearly stated.

For the purposes of this debate I will be using the following definitions:
  1. The alteration of something from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended.
  2. Sexual behavior or desire that is considered abnormal or unacceptable.


1. Relating to the instincts, physiology, and activities connected with physical attraction or intimate contact between individuals.


1. Relating to the instincts, physiology, and activities connected with physical attraction or intimate contact between individuals.

Other definitions may arise.

That all being said I look forward to a great debate and good luck to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you Pro for accepting!

I agree entirely that it is important to keep standardized definitions of the main terms we'll be using, to make sure we don't nitpick later :)

However I must disagree with Pro's given definition for homosexuality. It may just have been a simple copy-paste error, but it does not differ from the definition of sexuality. Homosexuality is sexual attraction or interaction between individuals of the same gender.

Additionally, I'd like to add another definition to perversion. The debate is not whether homosexuality is "considered abnormal" by society, or whether it's morally unacceptable. The debate is whether it is scientifically a form of sexual perversion, and for that I ask we use a sense 3 of the word: the clinical definition of sexual perversion; that is, something that is genuinely a mental disorder in the afflicted, with sexual manifestations.

Arguing on three fronts is difficult in a debate. If we are to argue about homosexuality scientifically, though, I ask that we focus on senses 1 and 3, as they can be backed with objective sources, while 2 is inherently subjective.

=== ARGUMENT I: Research ===

Here is a list of just some of America's UNBIASED and leading clinical, medical and psychological facilities, who DO NOT classify homosexuality as a sexual perversion or any kind of disorder, and in fact consider it just as "normal" and healthy as heterosexuality.

[ I: American Psychological Association ]
"Lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations are not disorders. Research has found no inherent association between any of these sexual orientations and psychopathology. Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality. Despite the persistence of stereotypes that portray lesbian, gay, and bisexual people as disturbed, several decades of research and clinical experience have led all mainstream medical and mental health organizations in this country to conclude that these orientations represent normal forms of human experience. Lesbian, gay, and bisexual relationships are normal forms of human bonding. Since 1975, the American Psychological Association has called on psychologists to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations."

[ II: American Psychiatric Association ]
"All major professional mental health organizations have gone on record to affirm that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. Homosexuality was once thought to be the result of troubled family dynamics or faulty psychological development. Those assumptions are now understood to have been based on misinformation and prejudice. Homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgement, stability, reliability, or general social or vocational capabilities. The American Psychiatric Association calls on all international health organizations and individual psychiatrists in other countries, to urge the repeal in their own country of legislation that penalized homosexual acts by consenting adults in private."

[ III: American Medical Association ]

[ IV: Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States ]

[ V: US Department of Health and Human Services ]

[ VI: American Academy of Pediatrics ]

[ VII: American Counseling Association ]

[ VIII: American School Health Association ]

[ IX: National Association of School Psychologists ]

[ X: National Commission on Correctional Health Care ]

Pro, are you accusing America's leading scientists of not understanding human health, their field of expertise, as well as you do? According to them, seeing homosexuality as a disorder or perversion is homophobia, which, incidentally, all of those organizations recognize as irrational, unhealthy and prejudiced.

=== ARGUMENT II: Health ===

Homosexuality is not inherently harmful, and in a non-abusive homosexual relationship, just like in non-abusive heterosexual relationships, partners enjoy a consensual sexual or platonic relationship that does not inherently hurt them or others. This excludes homosexuality from being unhealthy, as no one is being harmed as long as the relationship remains non-abusive.

Thank you Pro for reading. I await your response.


I'd like to start by stating that my reasons for the definitions I used are so that there is means of objectively proving these cases. While I will oblige my opponent and mainly stick to the ones he suggested, I will still use definition #2 when it is objectively feasable, for which I do have arguments, and as perthe rules, my opponent is free to ignore if I "go off topic" for purposes of maintaining cohesion to the topic. So if my opponent sees my stance on it as not from an objective standpoint, he is perfectly within his rights to ignore it as an argument and leave it up to the readers judgement as to whether it followed the rules of the debate.

However, I would first like to ask my opponent where he retrieved the "clinical definition of sexual perversion" from? The DSM defines paraphila and sexual fetishism, but there is no official definition related to sexual "perversion" which leads to the reaso why I proposed the multple definitions of Sexual, Sexuality, and Perversion.

Paraphilia is defined as "a sexuoerotic embellishment of, or alternative to the official, ideological norm," and sexual fetishism is defined as "‘fetish’’ and ‘‘fetishism’’ to specifically describe an intense eroticization of either non-living objects and/or specific body parts that were symbolically associated with a person."

I also want to thank my opponent for the accidental copy paste error when retrieving a defintion. It was to mean between those of the same biological sex. Another thing I'd like my opponent to accept is to utilize the term "sex" or "biological sex" rather than "gender" as gender and gender roles are known to be held by both sexes. This is something that is often discussed in talks on subjects very similar to the debate we have now, so for purposes of this debate we should refrain from that term in regards to biology.

Opening Argument

The debate we face today is a complicated one, for the debate is to focus from a purely scientifical perspective, yet, perversion and what is defined as perversion is a very subjective thing. As the definition of "sexual perversion" is not clear from a clinical standpoint, I must use what is available. The DSM defines fetishism in regards to non-living objects, so it cannot be that. It defines paraphilia as something not of the ideological norm, which eliminates that because that requires non-scientific evidence but rather relies on ideology.

The problem with classifying homosexuality from a purely psychological standpoint comes from the fact that our basis for much of our psychological basis relies on subjectivity. The pschological manuals define pedophilia as sexual relations with someone under the age of 13 (as a general rule, though the age could be higher), well there are countries that allow relations that young, Angola and Mexico for example, at least at a federal level allow consent at age 12. So, psychologically you cannot scintifically argue without involving any beliefs or moral reasoning.

So that leaves us with strict biological science. What I will be arguing is that from a biological standpoint, homosexuality is, by definition a perversion of what sexual relations were meant to be. From a purely scientific standpoint, sexual relations were made for the purposes of propogating the species. While emotional ties have been attributed to sexual relations, that comes from an evolutionary basis of developing relations to maintain a mate to propogate the species, due to human females not following the same mammilian standards when it comes to reproductive cycles and developing a hidden cycle. This led to males of the species to require a development of emotional attachment and some form of continuous connection to ensure that when the time comes then he will be able to propogate his species and "sow his seed."

Because of this, homosexuality perverts the evolutionary purpose of sex, because it continues the emotional side but that was only a side development for humans to ensure propogation, not the propogation itself. Therefore, homosexuality does indeed pervert the true intended purpose.

Is this wrong? We're not here to debate that. Is this a mental disorder? Well, mental disorders are subjective. Sadomasochism for example was considered a mental disorder but now not, simply due to people realizing that just because it happens and goes against norms doesn't make it wrong. However, does this make it a sexual perversion? Yes. It perverts, by altering it from it's original course or meaning to a state of distortion or corruption of what was first intended. The evolutionary development of emotions towards sex may be argued as an alteration, but it was not to distort or corrupt the intended purpose but instead to ensure the intended purpose. Homosexuality distorts the original intended purpose by altering it to a point where it is biologically impossible to fulfill its purpose of propoating the species.

Therefore, from a scientific standpoint alone, without subjective religion, belief, or other elements that are subject to societal norms or ideas, homosexuality is sexual perversion.
Debate Round No. 2


Imagination forfeited this round.


I see my opponent forfeited the round. Moving on.
Debate Round No. 3


I have not given up this debate, and I have arguments against my opponent's points, but I am super busy right now and unfortunately do not have time to pursue this debate. I apologize to everyone for the inconvenience. Hopefully we may continue it another time :)


I do understand that life does get in the way sometimes and it is difficult to come on here, do research and debate large topics. I also know that at times, I have forgotten and ended up with only 18 minutes to post my argument round and still managed to get a few paragaphs in, abeit not the greatest ones but I still managed. I am sorry if this sounds rude or insenstive to your position in getting busy, I don't know what all you have going on in your life, but I am quite busy myself. I'm a multi-business owner, an author, and a full time student, along with an active social and family life complete with their own problems. I do understand that things are busy for you but I ask the voting body to vote Pro for conduct as we all get busy in our lives and by accepting a debate you accept the time alloted for it, it does not leave an excuse to throw out all the work that the opponent did and the time that the opponent spent just cause your own life gets busy. Again, I'm sorry if I sound insensitive, but this happens too often on this site, people put in a lot of work into a good debate, then one person gets "busy" and the voters let the debate tie out because of that, as if the person who didn't "get busy" had all the time in the world and so his research and time spent was all for nothing. Vote Pro.
Debate Round No. 4


Imagination forfeited this round.


Vote Pro

My arguments were valid and unchallenged.
Debate Round No. 5
10 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by TheStoic42 2 years ago
Where to begin with this one. It's a very interesting thing to say that "we will be taking a purely scientific standpoint" and in the same sentence claim to be arguing that perversion is very "subjective". Let me start by saying that appealing to subjectivity is a poor decision here for the PRO side. Either it is subjective, in the sense the standards for determining the truth or accuracy of a claim is dependent upon the believers beliefs or attitudes, in which case it could be both true and false that homosexuality is a perversion for different people, or it is objective and the PRO side must argue for it's objective validity. Seeing as it being subjectively true would be too weak for the PRO side, he/she must argue for it's objective validity.

The PRO side then argues that "by definition" homosexuality is a perversion of what sexual relations were "meant" to be. The problem here is this seems simply to beg the question. If it is a definitional truth that homosexuality is a perversion, then all you have demonstrated is that it is a tautology, or you are presupposing your conclusion, which is a big no-no. However, I doubt you mean it is definitional truth at all, rather you are appealing to the biological function or sex. However, to assume that the biological function of sex is merely to reproduce or to "sexual relations were made for the purposes of propogating the species" is to also assume your conclusion and to beg the question. Therefore, on either construal of the PRO sides argument they have begged the question and their argument is invalid.

Finally, mental orders are NOT subjective in the sense the PRO side is claiming. This claim is absolutely insane. Moreover, it is entirely unclear what the PRO side means by subjective. They need to be clear on what sense they mean by this equivocal term. Lastly, science does not operate independently of belief or people's perspectives, so the argument rests on incorrect assumptions and is therefore unsound.
Posted by acacio 3 years ago
"it is pretty obvious and widely known that homosexuality is from birth"

So is psychopathy. That is not an excuse.
Posted by Imagination 5 years ago
Absolutely :)
Posted by Canadian-In-Florida 5 years ago
This will definitely be a fun debate.
Posted by Imagination 5 years ago
"Blaming" genetics? Everything is genetics. Choices are just indirect results of genetics. It's not actually possible to be oneself were it not for one's genes. One's choices meanwhile, are variable :)

I'll be posting tomorrow or the day after.
Posted by Canadian-In-Florida 5 years ago
In response to Ike's statement, it is "widely accepted" not "widely known" because scientific studies on the subject have yet to be fully conclusive. Blaming things on genetics is too often used as a scapegoat tactic by people. So, this topic is completely debatable. We'll see what happens in the debate.
Posted by Imagination 5 years ago
@ Ike-Jin-Park

I'll debate you as Con on whether this topic is not really debatable :)
Posted by GarretKadeDupre 5 years ago
Oo! Oo! I want this one! But I'm already in an open debate with you so I can't accept it... yet :( Can you directly challenge me to this debate?
Posted by Ike-Jin-Park 5 years ago
This topic is not really debatable since it is pretty obvious and widely known that homosexuality is from birth. Plus, this debate will have scientific evidence supporting both sides, causing the debate to be just throwing around examples and undermining each other's example than really having a logical fight.
Posted by 16kadams 5 years ago
Do enviromental factors count as a perversion?
No votes have been placed for this debate.