The Instigator
missmedic
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
PatrickTheWise
Con (against)
Winning
13 Points

What, if anything, is wrong or immoral about being gay?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+3
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 3 votes the winner is...
PatrickTheWise
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 3/21/2015 Category: Society
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,002 times Debate No: 72119
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (24)
Votes (3)

 

missmedic

Pro

I will be arguing that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. Since there is nothing intrinsically wrong about homosexuality from a secular perspective, do adult consensual homosexual acts and same-sex partnerships have harmful consequences?
PatrickTheWise

Con

I accept the terms of this debate and thank Missmedic for the invitation to debate.

The Pro has asserted that there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. There is an indication that the secular perspective is the range in which discourse will be held.

Secular is defined as "denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis."[1]

1. "Since there is nothing intrinsically wrong about homosexuality from a secular perspective."
1.a. I would like to contest this point within the realm of the secular perspective and with the definition of the word wrong to mean incorrect that, homosexuality would be methodologically wrong in the production of children. Children cannot be produced in utilizing homosexual activity, therefore if it is the intent to bear children, a homosexual relationship would in fact be applicably wrong.

2. "Do adult consensual homosexual acts and same-sex partnerships have harmful consequences?"
2.a. "Overall, homosexual men were significantly (p < 0.001) more likely than heterosexual men to have gonorrhea (30.31% vs. 19.83%), early syphilis (1.08% vs. 0.34%) and anal warts (2.90% vs. 0.26%) [2]"
An increased likelihood of specific STIs or STDs is a harmful consequence that appears to trend within homosexual acts.

I believe that this study fulfills the BOP required of the Con within the parameters set for this debate.

Thank you.

[1]http://dictionary.reference.com...

[2]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
Debate Round No. 1
missmedic

Pro

Thank you for accepting, you made some good points, which i now refute.
Point #1
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the inability to produce children, many people live very fulfilling lives without having children. However if a couple that could not have children (for what ever reason) and wanted children there are alternatives, including artificial insemination, surrogate mothers and adoption.

Point #2
STI and STD can affect any and all groups of people that are sexualy active, however it is not the group or the sexuality of the individual that puts them at risk, it is the behavior of the individual that puts them at risk. These high risk actions include, unprotected intercourse, having multiple sex partners, elicited drug use, prostitution and ignorance about STD. These high risk behaviors are not exclusive to homosexual groups. Being tested, using condoms and staying monogamous reduce the risk considerably.
PatrickTheWise

Con

1: "There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the inability to produce children..."
1.a. Definitions:
intrinsically: "belonging to a thing by its very nature." [1]
1.b. Analysis and rebuttal:
The Pro is attempting to shift the goalpost and lead the BOP to a new argument. Their first point is not a valid refutation as it does not address the problem of my first point in round 1.

2. "STI and STD"
2.a.The initial demand from the Pro of the Con is, "Do adult consensual homosexual acts and same-sex partnerships have harmful consequences?". They did not specify that there needed to be a contrast from other groups and even if they did, the statistics that were presented validate the request of the Pro in the quotation above.
The second half of the "Point #2" section, in fact, validate my argument because the Con admits that human sexuality regardless of orientation has risks. Therefore, if we consider whether homosexual relations have risks or "harmful consequences", they, in fact, do.

Thank you for your response.

[1]:http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 2
missmedic

Pro

It is all yours Mr. The Wise
thank you for your time, I learned something.
PatrickTheWise

Con

Thank you for the debate!
Debate Round No. 3
24 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by ZenoCitium 1 year ago
ZenoCitium
I think ironically the cause for the increase in STDs lies in your first argument. Where a pregnancy is not possible, it takes some of the motivation away from using protection.
Posted by PatrickTheWise 1 year ago
PatrickTheWise
Very foolish and uninformed stance gainwisdom.
Posted by GainWisdom 1 year ago
GainWisdom
3 out of every 4 homosexuals will get an std. There are consequences for ones action. Being homosexual is not natural. It is disappointing that we as a country are going down hill.
Posted by PatrickTheWise 1 year ago
PatrickTheWise
Totally agree with you Youngleader4216, I'm just representing the Con for this easy argument.
Posted by YoungLeader4216 1 year ago
YoungLeader4216
I honestly think there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. As long as you don`t go screaming at people if they disagree with it. But, if you want to go spend the rest of your life with someone of the same gender there is absolutely nothing that says you can`t and I couldn`t care less about it.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
right, you saw that contradiction... and countered it right away with judgmenet and no arguments...
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
nature is true

what im saying is, gays are dead
Posted by PatrickTheWise 1 year ago
PatrickTheWise
Nice way to contradict yourself.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
information exist outside Space and time

supernature is false
Posted by PatrickTheWise 1 year ago
PatrickTheWise
supernatural is something that exists outside of nature. Humans exist within nature, hence humans are natural.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by ZenoCitium 1 year ago
ZenoCitium
missmedicPatrickTheWiseTied
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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: A gracious concession by Pro. Sources go to Con, Pro did not have sources.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
dsjpk5
missmedicPatrickTheWiseTied
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: Pro appears to concede the debate in the final round.
Vote Placed by AlternativeDavid 1 year ago
AlternativeDavid
missmedicPatrickTheWiseTied
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:05 
Reasons for voting decision: This was an entertaining debate. I will award neither side conduct, for both sides were respectful for the duration of the debate. S&G will remain tied as I found no typos glaring enough to be noticed in one read through. Con gets arguments due to Pro's concession; however, I believe that Con could have done more with their side. Finally, Con is the clear winner of sources as he is the only one that used any, and they were very good sources.