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

Religion is good for humans while homosexuality and gay marriage is bad for humans

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 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/13/2015 Category: Education
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 645 times Debate No: 78651
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (2)
Votes (1)




As a homophobic atheist, I prefer to debate an atheist because most atheists are pro gay and anti religious. Even though God is fake, religion is a psychological immune system so it's good for those who believe God exist

1. Gays triggered the HIV epidemic in North America according to the timeline of aids from




"270 reported cases of severe immune deficiency among gay men, and 121 of those individuals have died"


"CDC reports cases of AIDS in female sexual partners of bisexual males with AIDS. "


San Francisco officials order gay bathhouses closed due to high-risk sexual activity occurring in these venues. New York and Los Angeles follow suit within the year.

Gays refuse to adopt and reopened the bath houses "even though their were high health risks of contracting and spreading hiv.


1984. HIV/AIDS: The closure of San Francisco"s bathhouses. Part One.

2. Gays stopped syphilis from being eliminated and triggered another syphilis epidemic

Syphilis epidemic among gay men (Gail Bolan 2015)

The gay HIV epidemic is increasing in all nations.


3. The gay HIV epidemic is increasing in all nations (aidsmeds 2013)

4. Gay marriage and other gay serious relationships increase HIV infections among gay men


The effects of sexual partnership and relationship characteristics on three sexual risk variables in young men who have sex with men.

Michael E. Newcomb, Daniel T. Ryan, and Brian Mustanski 2011

Here's a quote from the study

"The majority of new HIV infections occur within serious, gay relationships"


Religious people are less likely to commit suicide"

Kanita Dervic, Maria A. Oquendo, Michael F. Grunebaum, Steve Ellis, Ainsley K. Burke, and J. John Mann. "Religious Affiliation and Suicide Attempt" (161:2303-2308, December 2004)." Thinking about God reduces distress but for believers only

Prayer reduces Stress

J Tartaro, LJ Luecken, HE Gunn - Journal of Health Psychology, 2005 -

thinking about God reduces stress

Michael Inzlicht, Alexa M. Tullett. Reflecting on God: Religious Primes Can Reduce Neurophysiological Response to Errors. Psychological Science, 2010; DOI: 10.1177/0956797610375451

prayer" reduces anger and aggression

Bremner, R. H., Ko "ole, S. L.,


Since my opponent gave no definitions, I will define humans as “The human race; human beings collectively.”. Homosexuality as “The group of people who are attracted to the same sex.” Religion as “The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.” And finally good as “To be desired” whereas bad is simply the negation of good.


Pro’s argument is that gays are detrimental to humanity because they were the cause of HIV. This is a genetic fallacy, just because something harmful originates from X doesn’t make X harmful. For example, the latest Ebola outbreak started in a small village in Guinea [1], but it doesn’t follow that Guinea is harmful to humanity, even though Ebola is. We also don’t consider pigs to be harmful to society, even though Swine influenza came from them [2].

The argument works both ways, as straight people can get and spread syphilis and herpes, but we don’t consider relationships bad for humanity.

Furthermore, Pro’s argument is about a disease that he states mainly affects homosexuals. However, homosexuals are a very small percentage of the population. Within the US, it is said to be 3.8% [3] and within that, only about 20% have HIV [4]. So, Pro’s argument is that small group of people within a small group of people possesses a harmful disease, therefore the entire group is harmful to humanity. That clearly doesn’t follow.

Pro has failed to demonstrate his BOP in this section.


Pro shows that religion can help with prevent suicide, stress and aggression. However, Pro hasn’t shown that the elements of religion that do this are religion specific. For example, religion may prevents suicide, not because of something religion specific, but because the social aspect of religion create a good source of support. Prayer may relieve stress because it gives a sense of hope or the conception that you are talking to someone. All of these can be achieved sans religion.

From a societal standpoint, Pro has failed to uphold his BOP. There are some reasons to think religion is harmful from this standpoint.

Religion can cause tribalistic thinking, as it separates believers from nonbelievers. It teaches believers are special and are going to a special place separate from the heathens. This can cause condescension and disrespect to others and at its worst can cause religious wars.

Most religious teaching possesses fragments of what we consider backwards laws. Such as capital punishment for small offences, this can cause ideas such as Dominionism [5].

Lastly, a sociological study done by Professor Phil Zuckerman found that a nation being religious has no benefits over a non-religious society. In fact the secular societies fare better than religious ones [6]. Zuckerman concludes

“Atheism and secularity have many positive correlates, such as higher levels of education and verbal ability, lower levels of prejudice, ethnocentrism, racism, and homophobia, greater support for women’s equality, child-rearing that promotes independent thinking and an absence of corporal punishment, etc. And at the societal level, with the important exception of suicide, states and nations with a higher proportion of secular people fare markedly better than those with a higher proportion of religious people.” [ibid]

Pro has failed to uphold his BOP in either sections.

Back to Pro








Debate Round No. 1


teaches argument is that gays are detrimental to humanity because they were the cause of HIV"

This is a straw man fallacy. In other words, con attacked a distorted version of my claim.

My argument is, homosexuality is bad for humans. The origin of my argument covers more than just HIV. Con attempted to minimize my argument to HIV only to make it easier for himself. Gays triggering the spread of HIV is the most profound example. Gays also stopped syphilis from being eliminated and triggered another syphilis epidemic. I mentioned that in my first argument but con pretended as if I only mentioned HIV. Gays also have much higher rates of anal cancer, hpv, gonorrhea, drug resistant gonorrhea and a new strand of syphilis.

"This is a genetic fallacy, just because something harmful originates from X doesn’t make X harmful"

This is another straw man fallacy.

A genetic fallacy is an illogical argument for or against an idea based on the origin of the idea.

The origin of my idea is not gays triggered the HIV epidemic. The origin of my idea is homosexuality is bad for humans because the human anatomy does not sit well with homosexual behavior. Therefore, my claim is not a genetic fallacy.

"religion may prevents suicide, not because of something religion specific, but because the social aspect of religion create a good source of support"

Con admitted himself that prayer gives a sense of hope when they think they are talking to God. Hope could prevent suicide and depression hopelessness is a part of feeling depressed.

Study shows hope reduces stress

Prayer may relieve stress because it gives a sense of hope or the conception that you are talking to someone. All of these can be achieved sans religion"

Con spewed a tu quo que fallacy. Relieving stress in other ways besides religion doesn't change the fact that religion reduces stress.
"From a societal standpoint, Pro has failed to uphold his BOP"

Con attempted to use deceitful tactics by using fallacies such as attacking distorted versions of my claim. Cons argument has been nothing but fallacious and he fails to debunk my claim.

"Religion can cause tribalistic thinking, as it separates believers from nonbelievers. It teaches believers are special and are going to a special place separate from the heathens. This can cause condescension and disrespect to others and at its worst can cause religious wars"

Con is stereotyping all religious people. The truth is, not even 1%

Of religious people commited a serious crime. Assuming all prisoners are religious in the USA, the percentage is 00.5%

Bureau of Justice Statistics (Gov)

0n the other hand, up to 76% of gay men had an sti infection with in the pass 24 month in certain locations such as certain cities in south africa. Many of those gay men have possibly infected more than one person.

HIV testing and self-reported HIV status in South African MSM: Results from a community-based survey
Theo G. M. Sandfort, PhD, Juan Nel, D Litt et Phil, [...], and Huso Yi, PhD
Con fails to realize that he has to show evidence that a substancial number of religious people are truly being influenced by religion to commit serious crimes. Con is simply explaining what some religious people teach but fails to prove that a substantial number of religious people are committing serious crimes because of what religion teaches



Pro states that I’m attacking a modified view of his claim. However, my arguments still fit, they are not necessarily HIV specific. Pro’s argument about syphilis was two small lines that are easily missed due to Pro’s poor formatting. Pro’s main focus is on HIV/AIDS. He presents more arguments in relation to other STIs, but most are sourceless. I couldn’t find anything to support those claims either. Nonetheless, my argument isn’t HIV/AIDS specific.

Pro only focuses on my genetic fallacy critique and drops all others. He misunderstands what a genetic fallacy is, your idea may originate from the claim that homosexuality is bad for humans, but we’re discussing the evidence for this claim. Your evidence is based on the epidemiological origins, and using that to claim homoseuxality is bad. That still makes it a genetic fallacy, but even if I was wrong on that technicality my argument would still hold, because I still demonstrated this line of reasoning is flawed with parody arguments.

Near the end of Pro’s round he makes a claim that 76% of gay men have STIs in certain places. This is a very strange place to put it because he was talking about religion and he starts the sentence off with “0n [sic] the other hand” which suggests it follows somehow from his previous statement about religion. Anyway, the reason I bring this up is, because his source says no such thing. The results state that “Of the 728 MSM who had ever been tested, 14.1% (n=103) reported to be HIV-positive (9.9% of the total sample).” [1] The number “76” is only mentioned once in reference to educational status. This makes me wonder if Pro is checking his sources at all.


Pro drops my citations from Phil Zuckerman and instead tries to defend his arguments from religion being helpful in terms of depression. He accuses me of using a Tu Quoque fallacy. This is a fallacy “ in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser” [2]. No where did I do anything remotely like this. An appeal to hypocrisy fallacy would be if I claimed that “Prayer doesn’t help Pro in times of need, therefore his argument fails”. Claiming that a negation of a position offers the same benefits isn’t an appeal to hypocrisy whatsoever.

Pro states this is irrelevant because religion still helps. But, this would mean that Pro accepts that it’s not the religion itself, but the people of the religion. The actual belief and worship are irrelevant. Furthermore, in order to show religion is to be desired by humanity, it must be true that the antithesis doesn’t offer the same things which Pro has presented, which I’ve shown that it does.

Pro strawmans my argument from tribalistic thinking and religious teaching. I never said that religious people commit more crimes than non-religious ones. I stated that at its worst murder because of religion may happen, but I clearly said this was at its worst. That doesn’t entail I’m arguing that it’s the average. Tribalism may lead to serious crime, but not necessarily. That isn’t required to make it undesirable. With the argument from religious teaching, I’m arguing that it gives us bad ideas. Like Pro’s strawman above, I’m not arguing it creates serious crime. I’m stating it can breed undesirable ideas.


Pro argues from trivial and misunderstood positions. He drops many of my arguments and his choice of formatting harms the readability of his arguments.




Debate Round No. 2


"Con is clearly trying to deceive the voters regarding the definition of a genetic fallacy.

Con is also attempting to mislead the voters by luring the voters to focus on petty technicalities instead of the information that proves my argument is valid.

"The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue) is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on someone's or something's history, origin, or source rather than its current meaning or context"

My argument is not a genetic fallacy because my argument is not based solely on history, origin or source. My argument is also and profoundly based on a combination of CURRENT meaning, information, current information regarding biology and a pattern of gays continously having the highest std rates on earth in the past and present. Also, new, rare deadly stds are emerging in the gay community such as drug resistant gonorrhea and a rare strand of syphilis.

Quote from CDC


"In 2012, there were almost 9,000 cases of syphilis, and 84 percent of them were among gay and bisexual men, Bolan noted. "We are talking about cases more than doubling," she added"4

Syphilis Cases Climbing Among Gay Men: CDC (Bolan, ET AL 2015)

CDC: 20% of Gay Men Are HIV-Positive, but Nearly Half Don’t Know It (CDC 2013)

The Gay HIV Epidemic Is Increasing in All Nations (aids meds 2013)

San Fran Reports Drug-Resistant Gonorrhea on the Rise Among Gay Men

San Francisco Department of Public Health (DPH) 2014


A Rare Type of Syphilis Has Left Two Gay Men Blind in King County, with More Infected


Con is using the actions of less than 00.5% of religious people to blame all religions Con fails to see that any person in power could do major harm including the atheists stalin and pol pot who caused millions of deaths while in power.

Qatar is 99% religious but it is THE most safest place in the world.

How does con come to terms with this? If con was right, the most religious nations are suppose to be the worse but that couldn't be further from the truth.

Unlike religious people, gays have the highest rates of hiv EVERYWHERE

The Gay HIV Epidemic Is Increasing in All Nations (aids meds 2013)
Up to 38% of gays are infected with hiv in certain areas and many of them don't use condoms KNOWING there's a deadly std epidemic among gays.

Baltimore leads in HIV infection in gay men

"38 percent of the about 500 MSM surveyed in Baltimore were infected" - See more at:
Of religious people commited a serious crime. Assuming all prisoners are religious in the USA, the percentage is 00.5%

Bureau of Justice Statistics (Gov)

So religion is helping BILLIONS of people reduce stress, distress, anxiety and anger while homosexuality is causing stress by continuing and triggering std epidemics.

Not only does religion reduce stress, less than 1% of religious people commit crimes.
In conclusion, 00.5% of religious people commit serious crimes but up to 38% of gays are infected with HIV because they did not use protection KNOWING that there's an std among them.
Also, the atheist, Stalin and Pol pot were just as bad if not worse than any religious leader.
Religion promotes hope and helps BILLIONS of people reduce stress, anxiety and distress while gays constantly trigger deadly std epidemics to possibly put billions at risk of contracting deadly stds

NYC Women With Bisexual Partners Account for 3 in 4 HIV Diagnoses
A new study reports that in New York City, women are now more likely to contract HIV from a male partner who also has sex with men, than from using IV drugs or having sex with someone who does.



Pro yet again only focuses on my genetic fallacy critique despite there being two other rebuttals that I’ve made in round 1. He states I’m trying to win on “petty technicalities” despite that fact that I specifically said that it being a genetic fallacy or not is irrelevant. I still demonstrated the line of reasoning is false.

He claims that his argument is also based on current meaning and facts. Well, certainly he does present arguments of that manor, which is why I made two other arguments to respond to those. The genetic fallacy critique was on the arguments that had to do with his argument about epidemiological origins.

Pro also never addresses my attack on his misused source in his last round.


Again, I never said religious people necessarily commit more serious crime. Nor would such a thing be relevant to my argument. I argued that religious crime (in a human rights sense) may be committed because of tribalistic thinking at its worst. People who are religious who happen to commit crimes would be completely irrelevant as it doesn’t entail they committed it because of their religion.

The fact that there was some atheists who committed serious crime or a peaceful nation that is religious is equally irrelevant, as I’m arguing on the average. It is a sweeping generalization fallacy to take the status of a few men and one nation and apply that to what is good for humanity on a whole.

On a side note, Pro demonstrates yet again his misuse of sources. He states Qatar is the safest nation in the world, even though his source says no such thing. His source says right at the top “This statistic shows the countries with the lowest risk of natural disasters according to the Global Risk Index in 2014. At this time, Qatar, with an index value of 0.08, was the safest country in the world” [1]. This doesn’t deal with the general safest countries, only the safest from natural disasters.

Pro then says that religion helps people with stress, dropping my arguments that it’s not the actual religion itself and that it needs to be religion-specific for his BOP to be fulfilled. He also dropped his claim that I’m committing a Tu Quoque fallacy.


Pro has failed to fulfill his BOP. He never addressed my two other arguments in the homosexuality section and strawmanned my genetic fallacy response. He commits multiple strawmen in the religion section. Two of my arguments had to do with the undesirable mental aspects that religion can cause along with it maybe leading to actual religious persecution. Pro took this to be an argument solely about religious people committing serious crime. He never addressed the paper by Zuckerman I cited, nor did he respond to my objections to his argument that religion helps with stress, suicide, ect. He mainly reasserts his position while copying and pasting information from sources. I’ve demonstrated that Pro has misused his sources twice and have refuted all his arguments solely because he doesn’t respond to a majority my objections.



Debate Round No. 3
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
== RFD ==

Fairly straightforward. Basic points -- the resolution is a fact-claim, so the BoP lies entirely on Pro. The BoP is huge, since Pro has to prove: (1) homosexuality is bad for humans, (2) gay marriage is bad for humans, and (3) religion is a net positive force. If even *one* of these is not fulfilled, I can vote Pro down. The debate came down to these points:

1. SSM/homosexuality causes diseases
2. Religion prevents suicide

On 1 - I"m buying Con"s point that this is a fallacy, since Pro fails to really prove that "bad things come from X" entails "X is bad." Pro"s response is not really that strong -- changes their position and denies that they said homosexuality was the cause of the disease, which the point *is* about. And, even if Con only mentions HIV, the syphilis point is refuted via the exact same logic. I"m not buying the argument format: (1) X causes Y, (2) Y is bad, (3) ergo, X is bad. Con wins this.

On 2 - The argument doesn"t link. "Preventing suicide" =/= "good for humans" necessarily. Additionally, I just can"t buy the impacts, since, as Con notes, correlation does not imply causation. Plus, Con"s strongest counter-impact stands -- Pro virtually concedes that things that are factors separate from but related to religion prevent suicide, but "religion = good" does not entail from this. I"m dubious about whether this stands, so I can tie this, with slight Con.

Con clearly wins #1, and slightly wins #2. Ergo, I vote Con.
Posted by tejretics 1 year ago
I will have a vote up soon. #2 on my list.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by tejretics 1 year ago
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 
Reasons for voting decision: RFD in comments.