The Instigator
blond_guy
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
claypigeon
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points

The fact that homosexual couples can't have babies, should be viewed as a pro for our 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  
Vote Here
Pro Tied Con
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: 2/26/2008 Category: Society
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 1,665 times Debate No: 2934
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (1)
Votes (7)

 

blond_guy

Pro

It's simple. They can't have babies, so they adopt a one. That decreases the number of abortions in the country and solves the overpopulation issue as well.

For those who don't think there's an overpopulation issue google it. I did and this is one of the links I found.

http://www.overpopulation.org...
claypigeon

Con

This sounds like an interesting debate. Lets see what I can think up.

First off lets agree not to debate whether homosexuality is inherently good or bad. Lets just talk about the lack of having babies being a pro.

Homosexuals can have kids btw. They can get artificially inseminated, donate sperm, hook up with or marry someone of the opposite sex, etc. I assume you know this and so we'll just assume that homosexuals have kids less than heteros and that this is good or bad. That's the debate.

1. Overpopulation

I am skeptical about the whole idea of overpopulation. Sure we tax some resources more heavily as there are more of us but speaking from a biologists viewpoint, overpopulation is a temporary thing. We, as living beings, get a certain amount of energy from the earth. We have increased this energy through industry, agriculture, etc. but every time we do the birth rates and death rates level off fairly quickly as we adjust to our new biological niche. If homosexuals could have kids then the amount of sustainable humans wouldn't be any higher or lower. We would just reach this level more quickly. Therefore homosexuals not being able to reproduce doesn't even affect overpopulation. Hence that argument should be thrown out unless you can defend it better.

2. Abortion

A. Who is to say abortion is inherently bad. If anyone ready freakonomics the central theme there is that abortion has decreased overall crime. The argument is that crime is directly related to poverty and that somehow poorer people benefit more from abortions. I forget the mechanism, whether poorer people have more abortions or abortions aid poorer people more, or having a baby costs more for a poorer person (in regards to spendable income) but the point is that abortion can be great on many levels. More and cheap abortions = a richer/smarter/more healthy average population

B. My second point here is that poorer couples are more likely to put babies up for adoption. Poorer couples have kids that had worse pre-natal care and they have to go through all the psychological issues related to "changing parents" so each kid who is adopted is worse off than an otherwise normally born kid.

3.Cognitive Dissonance

If homosexuals could have more babies or than or as many babies as heteros I think the world would be better. There would be less heteronormativity or discrimination against homosexuals. Also, the average adopted kids are worse off than the average normally born kids as shown in my argument above. Therefore, if homosexuals could have kids these kids would be better off physically and mentally than the adopted ones. This has all sorts of benefits such as lowered crime rates, health care costs, etc.

4. The fall of the west.
The west has increasingly become urbanized over the years. Homosexuality is higher in cities than rural areas, probably for developmental reasons. There are also more reported homosexuals in the west per capita than the rest of the world. The west has a rapidly declining birthrate somuchso that it is shrinking in population size when immigrants are not counted. The west has many homosexuals and many cities so if these people could all procreate our population wouldn't be declining so much. And a country that isn't shrinking has plenty of benefits I'm sure we can agree on .
Debate Round No. 1
blond_guy

Pro

Thank you for clarifying (the beginning of your argument) and thank you for taking this debate.

1. Overpopulation.

<>

I disagree. If you look at China, they thought the same thing, however now they even have laws to solve the overpopulation issue there. Over here, it's only coming up as an issue, but it will be more and more serious as time goes on. The overpopulation problem won't fix itself. Homosexuals make a small difference, but it is, however, a positive difference.

2. A. Interesting point on the connection between abortion and crime. However, I'd rather poor women not have those abortions and give their babies to gay couples to adopt than to just abort them. Also, I thought whoever took this debate would be a conservative so maybe abortion won't matter to you as much.

B. I don't understand what you are suggesting. Are you just saying that a gay couple should just not adopt a kid once that kid is accustomed to his/her parents? If so, that kid is being put up for adoption by these parents for his/her own good, because the parents can't raise him anymore. So if you just question adoption, that's a different story.

3. When people understand that homosexuals are beneficial and pose no danger to society, and can actually be beneficial to us, then discrimination against homosexuals wouldn't be a problem. Gay couples' adopted kids will also be fine if this discrimination ends.

4. Who is to say this decline is bad. You say not counting immigrants. This is actually good for the West due to its immigrants.
<>

Not when we need it to shrink and not when the overpopulation issue is rising.
claypigeon

Con

I think this debate is going to come down to the overpopulation issue so I will attempt to explain that pretty well so any people who hasn't had a bio class where the teacher addressed this issue can understand.

There is a sustainable amount of people this planet can support. Humans take energy from the environment and translate it into more usable forms we can use. We can only get a certain amount of energy from the earth. We can't do photosynthesis or anything like that but we can eat plants/animals and change other carbon compounds into usable energy. Humanities total population has undergone some huge increases as of late but this is because we are in the midst of a demographic transition. To further explain, when humans discover a way to get significantly more energy from the environment, such as with the advent of agriculture or the industrial revolution, or medicine, population rates explode as the amount of humans the planet can sustain increases. Birth rates increase for a variety of reasons (malthusian, economic, etc.). Death rates do not rise to meet birth rates quickly as death rates depend on when the next generation dies and birth rates depend on the current generation giving birth. Therefore during a transition we can have a huge increase in total population before it levels off.

We are in the midst of a transition now. I believe it is predicted to be over by 2050. Either way, the total sustainable population of earth will be met. Whether its met quicker by homosexuals being able to have kids, or its met a tiny bit later if these people cannot have kids, the total amount of humans on earth will be the same. All that a childless segment of the population does is slow the time until we reach our population max. The population problem is inevitable.

What China and other countries have done is to address population as if it is an economic (malthusian) issue,sort of like what we do in the U.S w/ cigarettes. A Sin tax or other disincentive is used to prohibit having multiple kids. China is either overpopulated and these methods are quickening the time it takes to reach equilibrium again, or more likely it is underpopulated and China is fighting against something inevitable. They can enforce this policy forever or let equilibrium be reached for free.

2. On abortion we can just not debate this. My abortion-crime points were circumstantial and I don't even believe that there is much causation there though maybe there is. I understand your adoption point and my response is below.

2.b/3. Adoption: Whether a baby is going to be saved from abortion by adoption or is born to be adopted the baby will be less healthy ON AVERAGE than a normally born baby. If homosexuals could have babies normally and not have to adopt then their babies would be healthier on average than the adopted babies. This is due to many things (psychological, medical, societal etc.). Its pretty traumatic for a newborn to be taken from its mother.

3. Homosexuality is somewhat stigmatized due to them being a minority. Funny example, my friend had his clothes pissed on the other night by a big drunken linebacker. He didn't beat him up or make fun of him as the guy was BIG(270 lbs). If homosexuals were a bigger part of the population hate crimes and other forms of discrimination would not occur as often as there is fear of retribution. And since homosexuality is partly genetic, if they could reproduce the world would have a higher proportion of homosexuals.

4. Our disagreement here is on overpopulation. I argue that a decline is bad as we do not live in a cosmopolitan world and the more powerful/represented we as a country are compared to the rest of the world the better off we as individuals of that country are.
Debate Round No. 2
blond_guy

Pro

blond_guy forfeited this round.
claypigeon

Con

You started this debate AND STILL forfeited. I've seen you online these past few days. This isn't a topic that takes hours to research. I want a debate, not a win. Therefore in the interest of fairness I will not post anything new.
Debate Round No. 3
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by claypigeon 9 years ago
claypigeon
You started this debate AND STILL forfeited. I've seen you online these past few days. This isn't a topic that takes hours to research. I want a debate, not a win. Therefore in the interest of fairness I will not post anything new.
7 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Vote Placed by JonJon 9 years ago
JonJon
blond_guyclaypigeonTied
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 blond_guy 9 years ago
blond_guy
blond_guyclaypigeonTied
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 candice 9 years ago
candice
blond_guyclaypigeonTied
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 PreacherFred 9 years ago
PreacherFred
blond_guyclaypigeonTied
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 dxpilot 9 years ago
dxpilot
blond_guyclaypigeonTied
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 SolaGratia 9 years ago
SolaGratia
blond_guyclaypigeonTied
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 claypigeon 9 years ago
claypigeon
blond_guyclaypigeonTied
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