The Instigator
TheMoralCompass2014
Con (against)
Losing
2 Points
The Contender
Daltonian
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points

Is homosexuality unnatural?

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 1 vote the winner is...
Daltonian
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/21/2014 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,799 times Debate No: 59303
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (17)
Votes (1)

 

TheMoralCompass2014

Con

In this debate I will illustrate that homosexuality is indeed an unnatural human behavior and that this fact alone is sufficient reason to deny homosexuals the ability to marry. Many people claim that the government has no reason for prohibiting ssm in more than half the US. As always evidence for claims that are not common knowledge will be required. Best of luck to my opponent!
Daltonian

Pro

Before we really begin the debate, I would like to clarify some things. It would be appreciated if you could clarify them in round 2 before starting.

1. Resolution
- Homosexuals should not be able to marry because they are unnatural.

Your resolution is this, right? Are we debate over whether homosexuals are unnatural, or whether they should be able to marry assuming they are unnatural?

2. Define abbreviations
- What is "ssm" in this context?

- Is more than half the US in reference to total population or more than half the states? More than half of the US and more than half of the US states are two different concepts.

Good luck, I'll let you start! My arguments will be in round 2.
Debate Round No. 1
TheMoralCompass2014

Con

The anus does not lubricate. The homosexuality in animals theory is not a valid argument because the most recent research in this area has shown that when animals are given a choice of both sexes they chose the opposite sex. I intend to show that homosexuality is a psychosocial disorder and that if this be the case it also helps to show the behavior is unnatural.
My first point which is "the anus does not lubricate itself" is a self evident truth requiring no further citing of research. Why does the anus not self-lubricate? Because it is a non sexual body part intended for the evacuation of waste, not for sex. the anus has no procreative properties and it is therefore unnatural to use this portion of the body for sex.
As for my second claim, that homosexuality is a mental disorder; I will show that the reason for its removal from the list of mental disorders was not based on research but on the personal opinion of certain members of the APA(American Psychological Association). For the first time in the history of medicine a diagnosis was left up to a popular vote of APA members and was not removed because of new research or findings but because of political pressure and intimidation tactics by those attempting to normalize homosexuality.
http://homosexualityandscience.wordpress.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://www.freerepublic.com...
http://banap.net...
Daltonian

Pro

Daltonian forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
TheMoralCompass2014

Con

TheMoralCompass2014 forfeited this round.
Daltonian

Pro

I thank my opponent for his arguments. I will now commence my side of the debate, and hope that our discussion can remain respectful, contextual, and intriguing.

----------------------------------------------

Forfeitures
Judging that both me and my opponent consecutively forfeited round 2 (I lost my wifi for a day, and this debate gives us less than half a day to write our arguments), I would like to consider the debate as if the two forfeits had not occurred.

Before I begin
I am arguing as to whether homosexuality is natural or not for fun. Personally, I believe that the issue of whether or not homosexuality is natural is a red herring. It has almost nothing to do with the argument for gay rights, as it adds nothing to it nor illegitimatizes it. Morality and naturalness are two different aspects. When arguing gay rights, all that is relevant is the moral aspect of who deserves what rights.


Rebuttals

1. Lubrication
My opponent's point about the lubrication of the anus is invalid to the discussion of homosexuality because it attempts to solidly correlate anal sex and sodomy to homosexuality.

Homosexuality and anal/oral sex are not exclusive to one another. A huge amount of heterosexual couples can testify that they have tried anal sex, or even actively partake in it, whilst by logic most lesbians do not partake in it at all. There is no definite link between the two. Activites such as frottage and intimate touching [D] can be attributed to homosexuality rather than anal sex for some people.

Touching or frottage can not be illegitmized due to a lack of 'lubrication'.

The point "the anus does not lubricate it self" is indeed a self-evident truth, but is unfortunately irrelevant in entirety to this debate. So, you can not label "all of homosexuality" as unnatural by citing anal sex. However, admittedly, a wide variety of gay males due partake in anal sex, and so I will defend the resolution "Gay Anal Sex is Unnatural" as my opponent seems to have added it on to the discussion. See below.


1a. (possibly irrelevant to the debate) Defending anal sex in males: The male prostate
A lack of lubrication does not necessarily signify unnaturalness. I don't know how my opponent came up with this idea. Rather, I would argue that sexual liability comes in the form of being able to experience involuntary pleasure.The male prostate is a sensitive area, and positively responds to anal sex the same way that females respond to vaginal sex. It produces near the same experience that females have.

If not natural, how did this sensation in the prostate begin to form?


2. Mental Disorder
Much like my opponent's point about lubrication, this is once again irrelevant to the debate. Whilst homosexuality is most definitely nota mental disorder (unlike what your 3 unreliable sources may claim), whether it is a disease or an orientation is irrelevant to it's status as "natural".

Arguing that homosexuality is not natural because it is a mental disorder is akin to arguing that depression is not natural because it is a mental disorder.


New points

1. Anything that is not artificial is natural

Definition of Natural:

nat·u·ral [nach-er-uhl, nach-ruhl]
adjective

1. existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial): a natural bridge.
2. based on state of things in nature; constituted by nature: growth is a natural process.
3. of or pertaining to the nature of the universe: natural beauty.

Unless my opponent can provide evidence that a force beyond nature or created by humankind is causing the state of homosexuality in people, then it is occurring through the natural process, not artificially or through some sort of chemical or the likes, and is thus "natural".

2. Animal study (also a rebuttal)

My opponent seems to think that the entire scientific community is involved in some sort of conspiracy scandal in which they capture animals in activity, practically force them to have gay sex, and label it 'natural'
. This is ridiculous and untrue. If any one researcher has found that the hundreds of other researchers engaged in this practice, then he himself is probably more illegitimate than they are. When two or usually more animals are kept in activity, they are not kept solely with females or manipulated into partaking in homosexuality.

To prove that they were, you would have to actually yourself been a researcher for one of the studies in question and purport this, which I doubt is true.

According to widsepread scientific study, [B], primatologists state that of all involved primate species:
- 13 partake in homosexuality under both free (in the wild) and captive conditions
- 7 have been observed to partake in homosexuality only in the wild.
- 13 partake in homosexuality only in captivity.

It is also worth noting that in the of these studies of animals in the wild that the vast majority of the time the homosexual behaviour exhibited was not anal sex, further dampening my opponent's views of anal sex being correlated to homosexuality.


3. Reproduction is not the sole purpose of sex

I would argue that reproduction is not the sole purpose of sex, but among many.

The contextual definition of "sex":

sex |seks| noun

1 (chiefly with reference to people) sexual activity, including specifically sexual intercourse: he enjoyed talking about sex | she didn't want to have sex with him.

Pleasure is an equal an aspect to sexual activity as reproduction is. This can be verified by both the existence of the "g spot" or sensation of the male prostate and by the observation of female ejaculation [C], which has little purpose besides the feeling of pleasure by the party involved.Thus, the sole purpose of sex is not naturally reproduction. Reproduction is one of many.

If pleasure is an independent factor in heterosexual sex, then the ability to receive pleasure involuntarily in males would warrant homosexuality to be considered natural under the "pleasure" category that is associated with heterosexual activity.


Conclusion thus far in the debate

My opponent has failed to justify as to how any of his points are valid by form of evidence, or as to why they are even relevent to homosexuality. He confuses sodomy and homosexuality, thinking them to be mutually exclusive, along with dismissing the consensus of the entire scientific community and making the blanket statement that they themselves are "influenced", thus totally illegitimizing their works, a nonsensical view.


I have respectfully won the debate thus far.


--- References ---
[A] - http://dictionary.reference.com...
[B] - http://www.anthroserbia.org...
[C] - http://en.wikipedia.org... - *note: if you have a problem with the citing of wikipedia, you can refer to my current debate challenge as to why wikipedia should be considered a valid source on DDO
[D] - http://en.wikipedia.org...
Debate Round No. 3
TheMoralCompass2014

Con

"1. Lubrication
My opponent's point about the lubrication of the anus is invalid to the discussion of homosexuality because it attempts to solidly correlate anal sex and sodomy to homosexuality."
It is most certainly relevant to the discussion of whether or not homosexuality is natural. Just because some homosexuals don't engage in it is irrelevant. My opponent claims there is no definite link between homosexuality and anal sex, sorry pal you are flat out wrong. Homosexual men have anal sex therefore this statement is completely false.

"1a. (possibly irrelevant to the debate) Defending anal sex in males: The male prostate
A lack of lubrication does not necessarily signify unnaturalness. I don't know how my opponent came up with this idea. Rather, I would argue that sexual liability comes in the form of being able to experience involuntary pleasure.The male prostate is a sensitive area, and positively responds to anal sex the same way that females respond to vaginal sex. It produces near the same experience that females have.

If not natural, how did this sensation in the prostate begin to form? "
This argument is just absurd, I suppose the point my opponent is trying to make is that if it feels good it natural??

"2. Mental Disorder
Much like my opponent's point about lubrication, this is once again irrelevant to the debate. Whilst homosexuality is most definitely nota mental disorder (unlike what your 3 unreliable sources may claim), whether it is a disease or an orientation is irrelevant to it's status as "natural".

Arguing that homosexuality is not natural because it is a mental disorder is akin to arguing that depression is not natural because it is a mental disorder."
My opponent claims my sources are unreliable without citing any research to debunk them. If homosexuality is indeed a mental disorder it is most certainly relevant to the debate of whether or not homosexuality is even natural. The last sentence is my favorite,depression is not a natural state of being it is a mental illness, therefore by my opponents own logic homosexuality must be deemed unnatural if it is indeed a mental disorder as this would not be a natural state but a disorder.

Definition of Natural:

nat"u"ral [nach-er-uhl, nach-ruhl]
adjective

1. existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial): a natural bridge.
2. based on state of things in nature; constituted by nature: growth is a natural process.
3. of or pertaining to the nature of the universe: natural beauty.

Unless my opponent can provide evidence that a force beyond nature or created by humankind is causing the state of homosexuality in people, then it is occurring through the natural process, not artificially or through some sort of chemical or the likes, and is thus "natural".

The anus does not naturally lubricate and must be artificially lubricated to accommodate anal sex. Therefore by my opponents own admission homosexuals who practice anal sex are unnatural thus proving my argument to be true and factual.

"2. Animal study (also a rebuttal)

My opponent seems to think that the entire scientific community is involved in some sort of conspiracy scandal in which they capture animals in activity, practically force them to have gay sex, and label it 'natural'. This is ridiculous and untrue. If any one researcher has found that the hundreds of other researchers engaged in this practice, then he himself is probably more illegitimate than they are. When two or usually more animals are kept in activity, they are not kept solely with females or manipulated into partaking in homosexuality."

This argument is simply ridiculous: PREMISE: Animals use their alimentary canal as a reproductive canal.

ARGUMENT: Just because bonobo monkeys lick each other"s genitals when angrily aroused does not constitute proof of animal homosexuality. Nor does the occasionally observed behavior of "bulling" " one cow mounting another " constitute it either. Yet, these are but two examples used in peer-reviewed scientific studies to demonstrate that animal homosexuality is persuasive.
Analogous behavior is not essential behavior. Anal intercourse is to homosexuality as seeing is to sight. Neither homosexuality nor sight is definable in normal usage without its essential act. Instinctual animal mannerisms mimicking homosexuality but lacking the essential act do not constitute proof.
Every animal is hardwired to use its reproduction system only for reproduction. The alimentary canal cannot be used in any manner as a reproduction canal except in animals like penguins where the two functions are combined in one canal. This is because animal instinct alone is insufficient to override natural law. Only a rational animal is capable of overriding the order inherent in natural law and misusing the alimentary canal as the reproductive canal.

PROOF: The simplest proof is provided by TV programs featuring animals living in nature such as "Wild Kingdom" that has run for decades. Additionally, there exist countless homosexual pornographic media such as Internet sites, DVDs, movies, and magazines. There are numerous pictures of animals displaying homosexual mannerisms. But there are absolutely no pictures of two male animals engaging in anal sex. Only the human intellect is capable of overriding instinct and disregarding the laws of nature. Undoubtedly you have heard the phrase "mind over matter." This is one example.
In opposition to this line of reasoning, this article sustains that:

There is no "homosexual instinct" in animals,
It is poor science to "read" human motivations and sentiments into animal behavior, and
Irrational animal behavior is not a yardstick to determine what is morally acceptable behavior for rational man.

"Homosexual" Animals Do Not Exist
In 1996, homosexual scientist Simon LeVay admitted that the evidence pointed to isolated acts, not to homosexuality:

Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.[11]
My opponent has won nothing as winning would assume he has advanced his argument which he clearly has not.
Daltonian

Pro

I'm sorry to say it, but my opponent has either entirely misunderstood or neglected the fabric of my arguments in his rebuttal. In some cases, he will totally neglect the entire resolution and everything I've said and go back to stating how the anus is not lubricated, which I admittedly find half-amusing.

Everything he writes is subjective to the assumption that anal sex and homosexuality are mutually exclusive, which is untrue.

----------------------------------------------

Rebuttals

1. Lubrication
You have seemed to conveniently ignore almost all of this section of the debate. I trust that the voters will realize this. I highly suspect that Con, based on his response, does not understand this section of the debate in it's essence.

Anal sex and homosexuality are not mutually exclusive. Do you understand this?
Only some homosexuals partake in anal sex. Therefore, you can not use hypothetical liabilities in anal sex to define how all homosexuals are unnatural, because not all homosexuals partake in anal sex. There's a dumbed down version of what I said.

If something is not mutually exclusive, that means that they are not prerequisites of each other. You can be a homosexual and never partake in anal sex. Therefore, by your logic, not all of homosexuality is unnatural because not all homosexuals enjoy anal sex.

If anal sex is associated homosexuality because some homosexuals engage in it, then heterosexuality is associated with anal sex because the majority of men admit that they have at one point tried anal sex before or partaken in sodomy with their partner [1]. So, using con's logic, you could find that heterosexuality is unnatural. Therefore, his logic is obviously flawed.

1 - extended: Things my opponent needs to take note of

* The definition of homosexuality:

homosexual |G6;h!3;məG2;sekSHoV2;oəl| adjective

(generally of a person) sexually attracted to members of one's own sex.
Nowhere above does this definition state that being homosexual constitutes desiring anal sex with a partner. Note that "generally" is also included in the brackets.

No mention of anal sex is present above.

** You also conveniently skipped over the topic of lesbianism:lesbians are homosexuals and have nothing to do with anal sex.

1a. (possibly irrelevant to the debate) Defending anal sex in males: The male prostate
Again, ignorant of my arguments and totally incomprehensible. My opponent has failed to properly refute anything here. If the human body has formed in such a way that the prostate is sensitive to penetration, that suggests that it is quite probable that penetration would naturally occur there.

Please re-read the argument above and actually refute it in the next round.

My opponent has failed to refute this point. Therefore, I will interpret it as an admission of defeat unless he refutes it. Calling an argument absurd without refuting is far from worthy of recognition.

2. Mental Disorder

Con, again, has neglected to refute the basis of my debate and instead insults it. His last paragraph is a confusing mix of sentences which have are difficult to interpret from.

Mental disorders are natural, unless induced by outside force, like drugs. There is no evidence to suggest any outside force induces homosexuality. Therefore, if homosexuality was to hypothetically be a mental disorder, then it would be natural, because in a similar way to depression, it occurs naturally.

3. Anything that is not artificial is natural
This section of the debate genuinely made me chuckle. This section of the debate has nothing to do with anal sex.


This debate is not about anal sex, it is about homosexuality.

Con, instead of discussing the topic, decided to discuss anal sex instead. So, I'll repeat it via copy paste and hope con rebuts point 3 next time.

nat·u·ral [nach-er-uhl, nach-ruhl]
adjective

1. existing in or formed by nature (opposed to artificial): a natural bridge.
2. based on state of things in nature; constituted by nature: growth is a natural process.
3. of or pertaining to the nature of the universe: natural beauty.

Unless my opponent can provide evidence that a force beyond nature or created by humankind is causing the state of homosexuality in people, then it is occurring through the natural process, not artificially or through some sort of chemical or the likes, and is thus "natural".

4. Animal Study
It's predictable that con would interpret it this way. Con seems to think that in order for someone or something to be homosexual, it needs to have anal sex. This is not the case. Intimate touching of members of the same sex constitutes as homosexual in practice under the definition of homosexuality:

homosexual |G6;h!3;məG2;sekSHoV2;oəl| adjective

(of a person) sexually attracted to people of one's own sex.

Therefore, intimate genital touching between "benobos" constitutes homosexuality.

My opponent also claims that "mounting" during periods of arousal is totally not homosexual (seriously?) .. It is a sexual attraction between two members of the same sex. That is reminiscent of homosexuality. So is intimate genital touching. You cannot change the definition of homosexuality to suit your interests.

Additionally, no "angered" arousal between animals has been induced. In half of the cases, the studies were observed upon animals in the wild [2], making what you suggest impossible.


5. Reproduction is not the sole purpose of sex
Con failed to refute this point at all. Refer to above if you would like to consider attempting to refute it next round.


Concluding Round 4
Any notion that existed previously that I was winning this debate is now solidified. Con is unable to back his belief that anal sex and homosexuality are mutually exclusive, and has based a large chunk of his realistically very little argument upon this belief. He is obsessed with how little lubrication the anal cavity has and insists on mentioning it in portions of the debate that have absolutely nothing to do with anal sex, which is entirely odd considering that the debate topic is homosexuality and not anal sex.

This is an obvious vote for Pro. There is practically no debate present on con's side.

References
1 - http://www.details.com...
2 - http://www.anthroserbia.org...

(note: whilst technically pro, I am actually con. Instigator messed up in the beginning)

Debate Round No. 4
TheMoralCompass2014

Con

TheMoralCompass2014 forfeited this round.
Daltonian

Pro

Voters: IMPORTANT TO READ WHEN JUDGING
- Please do not take this debate's roles (Pro and Con are reversed)in their literal sense. Instigator messed up in the beginning and I accepted before I noticed it was the wrong way around. Some people like to consider the literal senses of the roles when voting and ignore the actual arguments just because someone made a small error. It is not in the spirit of debating to judge my argument as being "Pro", because in reality I am obviously con. What good would you get from judging my argument based on this and not on what I actually argued? I will still refer to con as con to avoid confusion, but I myself am con on this issue.


Conclusion

Well, this debate has a clear victor. Con has failed to fulfill his BoP in proving that homosexuality is not natural. I have successfully rebutted all of Con's original points.

Summarizing my arguments:

1. Anal sex and homosexuality are not correlated. Though anal sex can be argued both ways in regard to natural or unnaturalness, it is in the end irrelevant to the debate because the resolution is "Homosexuality is unnatural" not "Anal sex is unnatural"

2. If, hypothetically, homosexuality was a mental disorder (it most definitely isn't), it would by all technicality then be natural. Disorders in the brain occur naturally.

3. Since homosexuality in itself has occurred by cause of the natural process and not some artificial or human built forth, it is then assumed natural because MoralCompass failed to provide evidence claiming it was artificial.

4. The scientific community has concluded that, at least to some extent, homosexuality can occur in animals without human affluence or intervention. Even if it is rare to an EXTREME among primates, it still occurs naturally without humans or some other artificial force prompting it.

5. Reproduction is not the sole purpose of sex. This point went without a rebuttal. The ability to receive sensations (in the case of male anal sex, from the prostate) and pleasure, which is an involuntary reaction of gay sexual activity, is just as essential of an aspect to defining what constitutes sex as reproduction is.

This debate and it's topic is a red herring
Whilst I did argue for homosexuality being natural, like I said in my initial arguments, this topic is a distraction tactic. Whether or not homosexuality is natural is irrelevant to topics like gay marriage, gay rights, adoption rights, and etcetera. I would like to clarify this so I am not misunderstood.

Why I have won
1. My opponent has wrongfully associated the topic of anal sex in men with homosexuality; they are not mutually exclusive. He has based most of his argument off of that fact.

2. My opponent did a lot of rebutting to my animal point, but failed to consider it was hardly the most important point in the debate. All my opponent has done is rant about how the scientific community is unreliable and how the anus lacks lubrication.

Respectfully, this debate is clearly mine.

Vote for me, con playing the role of pro.
Debate Round No. 5
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Ajabi 2 years ago
Ajabi
'The anus does not lubricate.'.

I mean wow, like just wow. Like wow, dude, wow.
Posted by Daltonian 3 years ago
Daltonian
Voters, please please please don't do that thing where you totally screw with the voting system and vote illegitimately just because Instigator boggled the roles.
Posted by Daltonian 3 years ago
Daltonian
Compass, if you submit your argument in the next hour/two before I go to bed, I won't have time to refute in the morning. Please hurry it up :)
Posted by Daltonian 3 years ago
Daltonian
Con, you totally missed my point about lubrication.

A lot of straight couples have anal sex too. Does that mean there is an imminent link between heterosexuality and anal sex? Of course not. That was my thinking.
Posted by Daltonian 3 years ago
Daltonian
Con, the 12 hours thing can get a bit hard as well. If you rebut right before I go to bed, that leaves me with ~1-2 hours to rebut.
Posted by Daltonian 3 years ago
Daltonian
Lol, sorry, I see one small grammatical error: "the these studies" > this is supposed to be "these studies"
Posted by Daltonian 3 years ago
Daltonian
Compass, thanks for forfeiting. I didn't see your comment about forfeiting and thought you too had ff'd for other reasons.

In the case that you ff'd for me (blush), I would be glad to surrender conduct points and I will illustrate so in the next round.
Posted by TheMoralCompass2014 3 years ago
TheMoralCompass2014
As I tend to believe my opponents claim that his wifi was down I too will forfeit this round to afford an even slate.
Posted by InnovativeEphemera 3 years ago
InnovativeEphemera
...what's with you and all the anal talk? Seriously, bro.

And I'm not sure which debate you're talking about. Is it the one where you got pounded into the pavement? (excuse the pun)
Posted by Daltonian 3 years ago
Daltonian
Agh, sorry, I forfeited. I'll come back in the next round. I totally lost wifi the whole day.

Conduct points can go to you by default.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Domr 3 years ago
Domr
TheMoralCompass2014DaltonianTied
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:24 
Reasons for voting decision: Moral had sources, Dalt did not. Last round went unrefuted. homosexuality is not anal sex. Moral lumped that into one which hurt the argument.