The Instigator
Fortunato
Pro (for)
Winning
4 Points
The Contender
Dr.Franklin
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

Homosexuality is a paraphilia

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 1 vote the winner is...
Fortunato
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/5/2019 Category: Society
Updated: 2 weeks ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 197 times Debate No: 122610
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (1)

 

Fortunato

Pro

I contend that the sexual orientation of homosexuality is a paraphilia. A paraphilia is an abnormal sexual inclination. Homosexuality is the sexual attraction to members of the same sex. I believe homosexuality should be classified as an abnormal inclination because it discourages the normal function of the sex organs. The male and female sex organs are biologically designed for each other, And heterosexuality facilitates the normal use of the sex organs. Although heterosexuals can, And do, Engage in abnormal sexual activities, The fundamental orientation of heterosexuality also allows the single sexual act that can lead to reproduction, Which I believe is the only normal sexual act because the male and female sex organs are not designed to be stimulated by anything except each other. Even though homosexuals do have the ability to reproduce, This desire is discouraged by their orientation.

I also feel it necessary to make a distinction between a paraphilia and a paraphilic disorder. A paraphilia is simply an abnormal sexual inclination, Whereas a paraphilic disorder is an abnormal sexual inclination that causes inherent distress.

https://psychnews. Psychiatryonline. Org/doi/10. 1176/appi. Pn. 2013. 5a19

Because homosexuality is not inherently distressful, I do not believe that it is a disorder. I will also refrain from making any kind of moral argument about homosexuality because I do not think morality is relevant to this topic. I am simply arguing that it is abnormal from a functional perspective.
Dr.Franklin

Con

I agree but have you heard of The fall of the Western empires in East Asia.


The strike south was not just against the Americans at long distance but also at the British, French and Dutch empires closer to home. French Indochina was under de facto Japanese control through its rule by Vichy supporters. Britain (and many Australian troops) suffered the humiliating loss of Singapore in February 1942, With a much larger army surrendering ignominiously, After an utterly incompetent campaign, To a smaller but better-led Japanese army. Furthermore, The demise of British rule in Malaya and Singapore, And the similar capture of the Dutch East Indies (now called Indonesia), Effectively ended European rule in that part of the world, Much though Churchill would have wished otherwise. The myth of white superiority, With its many racist assumptions, Was shattered beyond repair, Never to survive the defeats of 1942. ‘Lions led by donkeys’ is a term often used about the generals in France during World War I. It is seldom used in our war, But it would be highly appropriate for the leadership of the defence of Singapore in 1942, Not just of General Percival, Who surrendered on 15 February, But also of the unfortunately named Australian general Gordon Bennett, Who fled the island. The oft-repeated legend that the guns in Singapore were facing the wrong way (out to sea, Not against an attack from the land) is sadly false. But thanks to the incompetent commanders, The defending troops were all in the wrong places. Furthermore, The Japanese forces under General Yamashita (who later became a war criminal) swept down the Malay Peninsula far faster (often by bicycle) than anyone expected. Percival failed totally to fortify the Johore area on the mainland adequately, So that the Japanese were easily able to cross the narrow straits and capture the island. No fewer than 130, 000 Allied troops (a mix of British, Australian and Indian) were captured on the mainland and in Singapore by a Japanese force of less than 36, 000. It is not surprising that Churchill described it as one of the worst disasters in British military history. The maverick historian Correlli Barnett has described the fall of Singapore as the result of Churchill’s decision to concentrate British forces in the struggle against Germany in the Middle East, And the new Chief of the Imperial General Staff, Sir Alan Brooke, Perhaps more accurately attributed the disaster in his diary to severe imperial overstretch. Perhaps both are right – Britain could not possibly have defended itself and its East Asian possessions all at the same time. Hong Kong fell as swiftly to Japan as Singapore in a less-noticed defeat. Feelings in Australia ran very deep on the loss – soon Japanese submarines were getting close to Darwin. Australians realised that distant Britain was not in a position any longer to defend them against a Pacific adversary. Thereafter, Australia looked to the USA for support, With MacArthur eventually establishing his base in Brisbane after July 1942 (his March ‘I shall return speech’ being made in Terowie, South Australia). But how could Britain have done otherwise? Victory would enable the USA to begin the fight-back against Japan.
Debate Round No. 1
Fortunato

Pro

I'm not sure what to do here, Because my opponent ventured into a topic that is completely irrelevant and does not have any arguments that refute mine. I'm new to this site, So I'm not sure if I should report his argument for being completely off topic. I'm not sure why my opponent accepted this challenge if he agrees with me. Perhaps he's just trying to be vexatious.
Dr.Franklin

Con

The more you know about WW2
Debate Round No. 2
Fortunato

Pro

Well, I guess this debate is over. I did have some arguments prepared for evolutionary responses, Such as the kin selection theory and the sexually antagonistic theory related to female fertility. For those who are interested, The kin selection theory posits that the trait of homosexuality persists despite being at odds with the reproductive desire because the homosexuals can contribute to the raising of their siblings' children and strengthen their survival chances. This theory is supported by what is known as the fraternal birth order effect, Which has shown that males have a greater chance of being homosexual the more elder brothers they have. It is thought that the reason for this has to do with the mother's progressive immunization to a male antigen: https://www. Ncbi. Nlm. Nih. Gov. . .

The sexually antagonistic theory holds that the same trait that causes homosexuality to arise in males also causes females to be more fertile, And it has been found that the mothers of homosexual men are indeed more fertile than the mothers of heterosexual men. Even though homosexual men have a decreased desire to mate with the opposite sex, This reproductive disadvantage is balanced by the increased fertility of women who share the trait: https://www. Ncbi. Nlm. Nih. Gov. . .

While these arguments may seem to refute my position, They actually do not. While these arguments do suggest that homosexuality is natural, They do not prove that it is normal. In fact, They support my argument because they all have to reconcile the abnormality of homosexuality with an evolutionary purpose. Even though homosexuality may have arisen for some indirect reproductive advantage, When homosexuality is analyzed independently, It becomes apparent that it directly conflicts with reproduction despite the indirect advantages that it may confer. The sexually antagonistic theory particularly emphasizes this act of balance. Sexually antagonistic traits, By their definition, Are beneficial to one sex and detrimental to the other sex. In this case, Heterosexual females experience the benefit of increased fertility, While males experience the detriment of homosexuality.

I think it's also worth noting that there are no female equivalents to these evolutionary theories. There is no sororal birth order effect that increases the chances of homosexuality in females. The only theory that I have come across is related to alloparenting, Which posits that fluidity of female sexuality developed so that females could form closer bonds with other females in an effort to facilitate the rearing of their children if their mate was killed or deserted them: https://journals. Sagepub. Com. . .

The alloparenting theory may or may not be true, But its validity is, Once again, Irrelevant. The alloparenting theory is also presented as a a sexual switch that women have the ability to operate depending on the status of their mate; however, There are women who remain homosexual for their entire lives without ever being interested in men, So perhaps women are more susceptible to the environmental factors, Excluding the status of the female's mate, That contribute to homosexuality, Whereas males are more susceptible to inherent factors, Like the mother's progressive resistance to the male antigen.

For the past few decades, Homosexuality has been presented as a normal variation of sexuality, The motivation being to reduce discrimination against homosexual people. I do believe we should not discriminate against people, But we should not sacrifice truth for acceptance. It is possible to be tolerant and accurate. Some may argue that classifying homosexuality as an abnormality is inherently discriminatory, But the fallacy of that notion can be readily exposed if homosexuality is substituted with a disorder, Like schizophrenia. We realize that schizophrenia is not normal, But that realization does not mean we cannot care for those people. Even though homosexuality is a mild abnormality, It is still an abnormality.
Dr.Franklin

Con

The goal of Japan in WW2

The goal for Japan was the Greater East Asian Co-Prosperity Sphere, A concept that dated back to 1938 but which could now be launched in earnest with attacks on the European possessions in Southeast Asia. Theoretically, This was supposed to represent Asian solidarity against white European imperialism, But in practice the human rights record of the Japanese was so barbaric – easily akin to the German treatment of Poles and other Slavic races in Europe – that in practice those who initially welcomed the Japanese as anti-colonial liberators soon regretted their joy once the countless atrocities had begun, Especially against ethnic Chinese. Thanks to the supine Vichy regime, The Japanese had already entered northern Indochina in 1940, And most of the rest of it before the invasions of December 1941 had begun. The massive oil reserves of Sumatra were essential to the Japanese war of aggression. Ships and planes needed copious amounts of oil, And both the British possessions in what is now Malaysia and the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia) had forty-three percent of global tin production and seventy-five percent of the world’s natural rubber supplies. Singapore, Then as now, Was one of the most important ports for international trade. Strategically (albeit not economically), The Philippines were also vital. An attack on these islands naturally entailed war with the USA, Since America still effectively ruled that country. The US Navy was increasing all the time in size, Still not thinking of itself as a two-ocean force but well on the way. Many in the Imperial Navy wanted the USA crushed before such a threat could pose a problem to Japanese ambitions. The complexities throughout the 1930s of the Japanese–US relationship is too involved to go into detail here. Suffice it to say that there was a strong pro-China lobby in the USA
Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Dr.Franklin 2 weeks ago
Dr.Franklin
can you fu ck off spamming the comments
Posted by Fortunato 2 weeks ago
Fortunato
missmedic,

The clitoris does not have a direct role in reproduction. It is just an erogenous area.
Posted by missmedic 2 weeks ago
missmedic
What would be the function of the female clitoris in relation to reproduction?
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by EverlastingMoment 2 weeks ago
EverlastingMoment
FortunatoDr.FranklinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 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 Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Naturally Con came into this with the intention of only trolling. Another unfortunate outcome. Default loss.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.