The Instigator
BlueGalaxy
Con (against)
Winning
9 Points
The Contender
vivalayeo
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points

The acceptance of homosexuality in society

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 2 votes the winner is...
BlueGalaxy
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/15/2010 Category: Society
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,709 times Debate No: 13154
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (11)
Votes (2)

 

BlueGalaxy

Con

This is the argument against the acceptance of homosexuality in society.
First a few things to iron out before contentions:
I do not hate homosexuals
I do not believe any act of violence can be vindicated especially in today's society
I am not religious in the least bit

Pro should start by giving a solid argument against my statement.
vivalayeo

Pro

I have accepted this debate, because I believe that there is no valid reason that homosexuality should not be accepted in a civilized society. You contend you are not religious, which means you have a basis, that is not founded on religious principle, and if so, I would really like to hear it. I will post more in the second round, after Pro actually posts his argument's so that I may rebuke them. You haven't stated who carries the burden of evidence, but since you are trying to prove that Homosexuality should not be accepted, and you are NOT basing it on religious values, then it seems the burden of proof lies in your corner of the ring.

Good luck to my opponent.
Debate Round No. 1
BlueGalaxy

Con

I see a lot of people doing the whole procedural thanking thing to one and other simply because it has become something of a requirement. Let me first start off by genuinely thanking my opponent for accepting this argument. It was solely by way of this particular argument that I found myself garnering a penchant for the wonderful cognitive exercise that is debate. The reason I choose genuine conveyance of gratitude over a systematic one is because it is a veritable interest of mine to pursue stimulating discussion as well as to provide stimulating discussion to others. On that note, let this debate be stimulating; both as an intellectual workout as well as an opportunity to learn from one and other and hopefully touch upon some truth.

Let me begin with a statement regarding my own self proclaimed rules: I am not here to argue semantics, only concepts. The benefit of the doubt principle entails us to not use any sort of particular wording of a statement/proposition against each other.

First I will set up a societal archetype, consisting of common misconceptions regarding homosexuality(it will be reasoning for the acceptance of homosexuality), and then on, negate the concepts with evidence, as well as logic.

Contention 1: Homosexuality is entirely innate, ergo it should be morally/socially acceptable.
Corollary:
(A)Basis:
This one is quite simple to refute, really. No scientific data or evidences can conclusively support this proposition. In fact Simon LeVay himself once said he did not want anybody to misunderstand his work in the way in which they would construe it as proof for the innateness of homosexuality[1a]. Many scientific studies will indeed claim as a thesis that indubitable proof has been recognized, but oddly enough these studies always seem to conclude on the same equivocal note[1b]. Saying that 'the evidence suggests(note) that biology may(note) play role(note) as predisposition(note)'. Let us analyze this hypothetical illation(I will post a link at the end of this contention to prove my point[1c]). The first word I noted was 'suggests'. All this word really claims is that the evidence concludes that 'it might', or that there is a reasonable possibility in terms of the validity of truth of the statement that follows the word('suggests'). The next word is 'may'. Same thing with this word as with before. The next word is 'role'. This word indicates that the biology is a constituent of homosexuality, rather than a causal disposition. We must also herein understand that when advocates claim that 'biology plays a 'major' role' they are using the term(major) relatively. Before homosexuality was biologically deliberated, it was thought that it was solely the result of psychological dysfunction. So now after the predisposition has been essentially proven, the conclude the course of events with the inference that biology plays a 'major' role. It should be clear how they are using the term major here, not as in more than 50% causality, but simply more than previously thought prior to scientific investigation. The final and most important word noted is 'predisposition'. This concept should be put under scrutiny being that most all scientifically qualified persons(even the majority of gay rights advocates) do chose the espousal of this word when referring to the biology(do note: when I use the term 'biology', I am referring to genetics/heredity, as well as endocrine intrauterine(prenatal) environments) of homosexuality. This basically says that all of the biological factors lead up to an implicit causality rather than an immediate one. http://www.narth.com...[1abc]
The fact of the matter is that homosexuality just isn't an inborn characteristic, nor is it an 'integral part of a person'. It is simply an askew sexual development(this is not necessarily a bad thing, as I will show hereinafter) that is confirmed and supported by a society that blindly looks to accept anything that tends toward the proclivities related to love.
(B)Conceptual refutation:
There is no conclusive data that can support that homosexuality is entirely or even partially innate. This being said, the logic that it should be accepted based on it being innate is faulty. And moreover innateness shouldn't dictate its acceptance anyway. Serial killers are known to be disposed to killing via a conglomeration of direct and innate dispositions. This does not make it anymore moral for them.
(C)Logical negation:
The idea of biological predisposition being fulfilled by psychological environment works infinitely better than the archetype of it being solely inborn. This is because, for example, heterosexual attraction(which is psychological, as it is a preference) is built off of the innate instinct to reproduce with the opposite sex. It is only logical that homosexuality would follow this archetype. Subject's innate instinct to reproduce is shifted via psychological dysfunction, and then on the attraction builds from there.

Contention 2: Homosexuality does not harm others, then on it should be considered as an acceptable behavior/way of life.
Corollary:
(A)Basis:
Here I will disseminate my personal view on homosexuality and show how it is the most logical view, and thereby prove how this contention is grounded upon faulty logic. First of all, we must define the term 'harm' as this will be the device of all repudiation(being that it is initially the device of all support). Harm, in terms of the support of this contention is only examined through one dimension. Basically, it's proclaiming that homosexuality has no physically adverse affects on those who do not partake on it, and because the persons participating have their actions warranted by their consent, they are allowed to harm each other(think anal sex, it's incredibly damaging to the rectum. Somehow though, we are permitted to self affliction by way of our own consent). The misunderstanding here, is that harm correlates only to things that are adversary to us as individuals, or things that give us 'pain'(using that term broadly). This is a shallow dictation of what is actually harmful being that we have the pain for a very specific reason so it would be necessary inside of logic to use the reason as a dictation rather than its result.
(B)Conceptual refutation:
We have the pain because of the instinct of survival; in terms of evolution. So we shouldn't dictate harm as something that bestows adversative affects to individuals, but rather to evolution(being that we are its product, and also because 'pain' or the former dictator is ultimately grounded upon evolution).
(C)Logical negation:
Being that homosexuality per se is not particularly harmful to evolution, but rather apathetic towards its cause, it makes the most sense to circumvent any espousal towards homosexuality rather than one of indifference. Do note however, that the acceptance of something that is indifferent towards our cardinal objective is definitely and logically irrational, thereby immoral. It is not homosexuality per se that causes any problems, it is the acceptance of it that does. Normalizing something that is inherently not beneficial as though it were, is a utmost act of dishonesty by putting ones feelings before the objectives of her own species. This kind of deception plagues all of society, thus homosexuals DO in fact harm others(by making the obligations of our species indistinct, or by radically proclaiming that we are without obligations), but only by being accepted as 'normal'.

Conclusion:
Simply put; homosexuality is indifferent to evolution(you may therein set up argument for the benefit homosexuality supposedly grants towards evolution, but all of the theories of altruism are simply not true being that evolution does not function through society but through the individual(read;The Selfish Gene)), therefore we should treat it with indifference.
vivalayeo

Pro

vivalayeo forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
BlueGalaxy

Con

Pro forfeits, I claim victory.
vivalayeo

Pro

vivalayeo forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
BlueGalaxy

Con

BlueGalaxy forfeited this round.
vivalayeo

Pro

vivalayeo forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
BlueGalaxy

Con

BlueGalaxy forfeited this round.
vivalayeo

Pro

vivalayeo forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
11 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
Con could have been fairly easily refuted, but to do that Pro would have to show up and actually do it. He didn't, so it goes to Con.

Con should have clearly stated the resolution and initiated as Pro.
Posted by BlueGalaxy 6 years ago
BlueGalaxy
Your gratitude is greatly appreciate, sir.
Posted by RelativeState 6 years ago
RelativeState
You sir... are very high brow in your format, but i dig it, i have to read slower but if you could have friends on here, you would have just warranted a friend request and a gold star. I look forward to watching this debate develop.
Posted by BlueGalaxy 6 years ago
BlueGalaxy
It's not necessarily a behavior, no I never said that.. more of an unconscious askew development(like I said in my argument)(do note that a behavior is completely different from a development). I'd say that homosexuality is a pretty insignificant component, in juxtaposition to war, famine, genetic defects, and etc. And the biological predisposition may indeed be the culmination of many unfavorable traits, as that is a perfectly valid explanation, but the predisposition is not the causal component, only the enabler of the causality. Ergo it doesn't do you any good to espouse that argument.

Also the notion that there are latent homosexuals within society makes the mistake of implying that it is a (innate)behavior rather than a development. You see, normalization will ultimately cause a higher homosexual populace not because there are latent ones sporadically placed throughout society (that would come out only if they could be accepted), but because the acceptance of it will cause more people to tend towards that particular development. That is certainly on the contrary to popular conviction, but it is nevertheless evidently supported by the scientific evidences and data(again, I appeal to the differentiation of shrill claims regarding the science compared to the actual science itself).
Posted by RelativeState 6 years ago
RelativeState
define significant, who's to say that homosexuality is completely behavioral? If it were biological then it would be a trait that is counter-intuitive to propagation of the species and one that you wouldn't want passed down through generations, but as you have more people you will also have a larger percentage of said group all things being equal. Who is to say its not a culmination of too many unfavorable traits to the survival of the species without producing a terminal result. But as the Homosexual community is one of many things that do regulate the population of a society, along with illness, and genetic defects(not implying that homosexuality is akin to illness or genetic defects), when taken as a whole, it is a contributing factor, do you disagree? Besides, in our society Homosexuality is only just beginning to be widely accepted and tolerated, who is to say that the actual population of homosexuals isn't far larger than it stands as measured in todays society.
Posted by BlueGalaxy 6 years ago
BlueGalaxy
Homosexuality has no significant affect on population. It would be a misunderstanding to deem homosexuality as the naturally inducted mechanism for population control for two reasons: this is immensely counter-intuitive to the cardinal objective of evolution(which is concisely defined as the goal towards indefinite species propagation), and also because the homosexual population is simply too low and insignificant to have any functional affect.
Posted by RelativeState 6 years ago
RelativeState
Thats an interesting take on it, i hope con takes a natural population control perspective on the rise of homosexuality in society position. This debate shows promise yet....
Posted by Puck 6 years ago
Puck
Odds he is asking you to do his hw? :P
Posted by RelativeState 6 years ago
RelativeState
I agree with Vivalayelo, You havent really make much framework to your argument. Acceptance at a state and government level? Being recognized as a couple/marriage, Your statement sounds more like you are arguing they should be outcasts and banished to the woods of the village.
Posted by vivalayeo 6 years ago
vivalayeo
You need to give a better opening statement, and perhaps a more clearly defined title
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by chengste 6 years ago
chengste
BlueGalaxyvivalayeoTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 6 years ago
RoyLatham
BlueGalaxyvivalayeoTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:Vote Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:60