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

There's nothing wrong with homosexuality

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
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: 2/1/2012 Category: Miscellaneous
Updated: 6 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 3,109 times Debate No: 20798
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (18)
Votes (1)




I would like to argue that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. It is just as valid as hetrosexuality. I'm not going to do first round acceptance please feel free to post your argument straight away but I would ask that you'r last round doesn't have any new arguments.

Good luck to my opponent.


First off I do not hate homosexuals in anyway shape or form so please if I come off gay bashing im not trying to, thanks.

First defining some things

When my opponent says valid or validity of homosexuality I will define that as valid under the law or marriage.
Meaning is it valid in the law or marriage process.

As well I will define wrong as to find logical fault with.


1. Legally homosexual marriage has great potential for abuse, like the movie I now pronounce you chuck and larry.
People could use homosexual marriage only for beneficial gain under the law. marriage before the law was a religious thing, most religions don't allow homosexuality. So when the original idea of marriage was put into law homosexual marriage was not allow because it was an adopted religious law put into the law.

2. Logically homosexuality is wrong, seeing how homosexuals without the help of technology they could never bare children of their own, and only adoption is the only option. As well its natural for creatures to be heterosexual.
Now some might argue that some animals behave in homosexual activity, this does not mean they are completely homosexual. As well as the fact that the parts fit. The male reproductive system is specifically under nature made for the female reproductive system. As well as your rectum is not meant for sex be the digestive system, anal sex is a un natural act of sex as well as oral. Yes I know i'll get letters.

3. Again marriage before the law was a religious thing, most religions don't allow homosexuality.
Therefore religiously homosexuality is not a valid practice.

So in conclusion theres no validity in the Law,Nature, and religion.
Debate Round No. 1


Thank you for your acceptance and response. :)

When I said valid, I meant it's as OK and acceptable as heterosexuality but I agree with gay marriage as well so we shall go by your definition.

1) What you see in a film isn't often a good source to go by as can be seen here. I don't see any way in which it could be abused. You don't just suddenly get benefits from the government for being married to someone of the same sex. I am here to argue for equality of homosexuals and heterosexuals and this includes marrige. I am an atheist (and an anti-religious) and I think it is clear now that we are past the stage of marriage being a thing of religion and is now seen as an important part of a couples life (religious or non religious) where they basically agree to spend the rest of their lives with each other.

2) Logically homosexuality is not wrong. In fact particularly in the coming years it's going to be very important. If you are born homosexual and find yourself attracted to the same sex then obviously it is impossible to have kids without the aid of technology or a third party (e.g. sperm donor) but adoption isn't actually a bad thing at all. This is for 3 main reasons:
a- It gives kids in care an opportunity to be adopted (and I know that couples who can't have kids adopt but there aren't enough).
b- With more kids coming out of the care system, less money would be needed to be put into it so the government would have that money to spend elsewhere.
c- With population booming all over the world cutting down on the amount of kids we have might actually be a good idea. Adoption can help this.
I would most certainly argue that animals can be homosexuals. Have a look here;
for a list and explanations of the behavior the animals carry out.

Sex was intended by natural selection to keep the species going but more recently we have accepted it to act as a reproductive system, but also a way of showing our love for someone and enjoying ourselves. It's not dangerous (most of the time) to have anal or oral sex so if both people enjoy it; why the heck not?!

3) Islam is a mainstream religion and is completely against homosexuality but Christianity only condemns gay sex not homosexuality itself. Me being atheist, I think and have the evidence to back up that the bible and quran are basically rubbish. The bible condones torture, rape and murder as does the quran but I don't suppose too many religious people believe that's ok!

In conclusion, homosexuality is just as acceptable as heterosexuality. Why can't we just chill out and have some fun sometimes!

Thanks and I look forward to your rebuttal.


My case defense:

1. That movie is a good reference they use marriage to be able to put his life insurence on his friend who was pretending to be gay with him. You can't argue marriage benefits, its the law to have your spouse be your beneficiary.

2. One Wiki is not a good source and should never be used as evidence in a debate.
Secondly Naturally sex is the reproductive system and anal sex and oral sex is not natural therefore wrong.
I never argued against adoption, just that homosexuality is not natural therefore wrong.
My argument parts fit still stand. As well as the animal thing being homosexuals they only have homosexual activity they do not stay homosexual its more likely to say they have homosexual and heterosexual behavor because animals dont know better :/ yeah, Thats like saying oh killing peoples okay because some monkeys kill other monkeys , ignorant animals don't know right from wrong they have no concept of nature. We do which is scientifically all things have a purpose. Example the penis is for the vagina or leaves are to trees or electrons and protons and to atoms. homosexual activity is un natural you might argue that well if we wanna do it well thats all fine and dandy but thats not my point.

3. Prove it I want a source that proves the bible says raping,killing and torturing as well as where they allow gay marriage in the religion and not an altered form I mean like baptist, catholic even. Marriage is a religious concept and the religions do not allow homosexuality therefore my point still stands that .....

Religiously,Legally, and logically homosexuality is wrong.

As well as my opponent doesn't really have a case she just attacked mine.
Debate Round No. 2


owen99999 forfeited this round.


Extend I urge all conduct points to my side.
I also urge a vote for my side for my points still standing.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 3


Firstly I'd like to apologize for not being able to post my response last time; I have no excuse I've just been really busy so if seen as fit, judges can vote against me on CONDUCT for that.

Secondly I'd like to say that I do not believe the burden of an argument lies with me as you are arguing against something that is widely accepted as OK. Also my argument is basically if there is no IMPORTANT reason against homosexuality (which I don't believe there is) then it should be accepted as OK because otherwise we are upsetting and taking privelages from fellow equal humans.

Right. Rebuttals.

1) I still think movie's are never a good reference. They are full of fiction even when they are set in today's society and it's difficult to tell the difference sometimes. You are still not made it clear what you are talking about! Please next time explain what you mean. Surely straight couples can do the same thing? If so this argument is easily debunked.

2) Wikipedia is under-rated. Yes for articles about famous people might go on and change things but I'm pretty sure (and I have checked with my biology professor) that this article is 100% accurate. I didn't say you argued against adoption. I said having gay marriage would REDUCE The number of children in the care system. This is a positive thing as it gives those kids better lives AND reduces the amount of public taxes going into the system.
As a rebuttal to your argument:
"Naturally sex is the reproductive system and anal sex and oral sex is not natural therefore wrong.", I put forward:
"Vaginal intercourse is a part of the reproductive system but playing chess is not and therefore wrong.". It doesn't seem particularly sensible now!
As for monkeys killing eachother; this is true but that is a LACK OF MORALS not a genetic thing or a way animals are born it's decisions they make. Homosexuality is not a decision it's the way you are born and I don't want you to come back with 'no it's not' because I have friends that are 15 who are gay who I trust and are great people and have said when everyone else said they liked girls the REALISED they liked boys (or vice versa for lesbians).
Your last point is also pretty ignorant. You could just as well say the penis is for the anus it makes no difference. Leaves and trees and protons and electrons have nothing to do with it. I am arguing that it is fine! That is what Ok means! What are you arguing then?!

3. Ok:
Slavery/Torture in the bible:

Here are some religions that allow homosexuality or even directly support it:
to name a few.
There is no such thing as a 'proper' religion. All religions are proper. If I said now I was a 'noienaoeigta-ist' and believed the universe was created by a giant fuchsia coloured teapot, that would be a proper religion.

I'm not going to write a conclusion this time as I think my points speak for themselves.

I look forward to your rebuttals.


Ok first I want to point out my opponent is kinda arguing outside my definitions I set and outside the resolution.
Secondly at the begining of the debate i defined "wrong" to find logical fault with.

Ok being gay has nothing to do with genetics, thats bull and he has no proof to prove the claim and personal experinces do not count as a source nor does you saying your teacher said so thats not a source. Begin born gay is like say I was born loving video games, or the color blue. Which is untrue preferences are base upon personal intrest we gain as humans. When we are just born we have no concept of homosexuals or the color blue, but your argument says they do, sadly for you they don't. Its just something you like, and don't try to justify it with genetics just accept it you like what you like because you choose to like it. I like the color blue because i choose to like it.

PS. I don't like being called ignorant just because you don't understand the argument insults were not called for, and it makes you sound ignorant for saying it.

1/ I am going to drop point one its semantics.

2/ I don't argue adoption at all in fact he wants to make the a marriage/adoption issue when this debate isnt about gay right but weither homosexuality is logically wrong. Which I stated that in nature homosexuality is wrong making it logically wrong. Monkeys killing each other is not lack of morals its the lack of not even having the concept of nature and morals. Monkeys understand neither morals nor nature whatever actions they take isn't of great conscience a debunks the argument of animal homosexuality because they don't even comprehend what they are doing! Genetics is already attacked/defended against.

(Your last point is also pretty ignorant. You could just as well say the penis is for the anus it makes no difference. Leaves and trees and protons and electrons have nothing to do with it. I am arguing that it is fine! That is what Ok means! What are you arguing then?!)

Really.... Your the ignorant one, in nature Penis is made specifically for the Vagina is that a hard concept for you little brain to wrap around or do you really know nothing of science. My examples in nature was leafs to a plant or neutrons to an atom or blood for the heart. Everything in nature has a specific function and the penis function is for the vagina and the vaginas for the penis. To reproduce nothing more nothing less, Oral or anal sex is not nature because your mouth is for eating and your rectum is for crapping not to have penis's in. Its not of nature therefore logically wrong.


Oh wow like a care about your anti christian site, For one the bible was written by man back before women were treated like humans back then they were property and if you don't like what happened back then well sorry.
Further more I honestly don't care its irrelevent to my argument Marriage is a Christian, muslim, and jewish thing which doesn't allow homosexuality and seeing how they have more members than -Confucianism-Satanism-Hinduism I believe i reperesent the majority.

Points its logically wrong even if you don't believe legally or religously wrong.
Debate Round No. 4
18 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by owen99999 6 years ago
Haha! The earth is (pretty much) a sphere but if I'm in a debate with someone from the flat earth society for example, I have to PROVE that. Many animals can comprehend ideas similarly to the way humans can. That is yet another piece of evidence for evolution. I think it is you who hasn't had a proper education. You can't even spell or form proper sentences. Anyway I won deal with it.
Posted by joshuaXlawyer 6 years ago
If i say the earth is round thats a fact that is common knowledge unless u havent had a elementary education. My monkeys dont know any better point is common knowledge that animals dont comprehend like humans. That is common know not everything need a source only facts like if i said oh this study say its a choice or my professor said needs proof.
Posted by owen99999 6 years ago
Hey man you know the earth is a cube shape? Common knowledge!

You see it doesn't work. When debating here's a tip; nothing is common knowledge; you need a source for everything.
Posted by joshuaXlawyer 6 years ago
Everything I used was common knowledge.
Posted by joshuaXlawyer 6 years ago
I didnt use any sources because I didnt use anything that was common knowledge ......
Posted by owen99999 6 years ago
Please show me where I insulted you; I don't think I did.

Thanks for voting! :) And yes I probably shouldn't have used evil bible thinking about it now but the quotes on that website are entirely accurate and I would have said the same.
Posted by BangBang-Coconut 6 years ago
+ I like your round 2 refutation about adoption.
+ After you brought up the Athiest argument, you could have dropped that point right there. You where winning.
+ Be careful about playing the religion game with your opponent. The "evilbible" source was kind of biased. You should have just presented the scriptures themselves and offered aalysis.

+ Semantics are bad. You're only hurting yourself with them
+ You're good at analytic arguments, but you still need evidence.
+ When you said "prove it" You set yourself up for a loss. You've not offered any sources in the round, so by staying as Tab as possible I had to buy your opponent's arguments.

Conduct: I don't buy either side to vote down for conduct
Spelling/Grammar: Again, pretty equal. There weren't any glaring errors that prohibited me from reading.
Arguments: Pro's arguments had better warrants, and bigger impacts. Con's arguments had no warrant, and he kept beating the dead horse argument of religion until the very end.
Sources: Con didn't provide any. Even though pro's sources where biased, they at least tried.
Posted by joshuaXlawyer 6 years ago
Says the guy who insulted me first lol
Posted by owen99999 6 years ago
Please take into account the insulting and awful conduct of my opponent in the final round. I may have missed round three but in round four my oponent was rude and was not debating properly just throwing insults around. I urge a Pro vote.
Thank you
Posted by owen99999 6 years ago
I don't usually I but I did check this article with my biology teacher.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by BangBang-Coconut 6 years ago
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 Checkmark--2 points
Total points awarded:50 
Reasons for voting decision: In Comments