Homosexuality Should Not be Permitted

This was my first serious debate and I enjoyed it very much. I will begin by addressing my opponent's points and then move on to a general summary of the debate. First, though, I must point out that my opponent's entire R3 argument has been copied verbatim from his R1 in a gay marriage debate [1]. While I won't comment on the appropriateness of this action, I will state that by doing so he has completely ignored the majority of my arguments. As such, most of his R3 argument is irrelevant to this debate. As a side note, I made a point not to read the remainder of that debate to ensure my arguments were in no way influenced by Pro's other opponent. ::Pro's Arguments:: 1. Homosexual Couples Shouldn't Raise Children This argument is irrelevant for two reasons. First, the resolution at hand is on homosexuality, defined here as erotic activity with another of the same sex. As gay marriage has nothing to do with this act or its legality, this is a non-resolution item and immaterial. Secondly, Pro's quibble with single-parent households is not exclusive to homosexual couples. Any home consisting of a single parent (as mine was), a single relative, a single guardian, or any possible non-romantic same-sex pairing would meet Pro's definition of a deficient and harmful household. This stance is both insultingly simplistic and completely unrelated to the resolution. 2. Divorce is Not an Option This debate is about the act of homosexuality, not the act of homosexuality, followed by coupling, followed by marriage, followed by divorce. Furthermore, I never suggested banning divorce. By coping and pasting his entire argument, my opponent has confused my arguments with those of another debater. 3. Short, Troubled Homosexual Relationships Essentially, my opponent is claiming that because homosexual relationships can be short lived and romantically troubled, they should be illegal. Of course, an objective reading of that sentence reveals its ridiculousness. If a sexual lifestyle was deemed legal only according to its effectiveness, both homosexuality and heterosexuality would be outlawed. According to my opponent's logic, heterosexuals, whose marriages end in divorce 40-50% of the time, and 20-24 year olds, who account for significantly more divorces that any other age group, should also be banned from marrying [2]. Infidelity and divorce are not exclusive to any orientation and labeling any one as a "twisted perversion" is not only hateful but also ignorant of the difficulties all individuals experience during relationships. 4. Homosexuals and Psychological Problems Pro claims that homosexuals are more likely to experience depression and alcohol abuse but attributes these disorders with practicing an aberrant lifestyle. However, studies suggest the more likely culprit for these torments is the discrimination homosexuals face because of their sexual orientation [3][4]. A comprehensive 2004 study showed that the majority of homosexuals involved (83%) experienced some form of physical or emotional attack aimed at their sexuality, and the majority of these individuals came to associate their homosexuality with such psychological distress [3]. It would truly be a cruel example of irony to ostracize homosexuals because of psychological problems when these problems stem from being ostracized in the first place. ::Debate Recap:: The following resolution items were completely abandoned by Pro after my cross-examination: • Homosexuality increases the rate of homosexuals • Homosexuality leads to polygamy • Homosexuality leads to bestiality • Because homosexuality was illegal in the past, it should be illegal now • Because the decision of the APA to declassify homosexuality as a mental illness was controversial, homosexuality should be illegal • Homosexuality destroys religious freedom • The founding fathers never meant for homosexuality to be a part of our society (note: this point was abandoned in R3) The following non-resolution items were raised by Pro, seemingly only to confuse the issue at hand: • Gay marriage • Divorce of homosexual couples • Adoption by homosexual couples • Child rearing practices The following are arguments I've raised that have gone completely unacknowledged by Pro, indicating a concession to these points: • Consensual homosexual acts fall under the right to privacy and are legally protected • Homosexuality contains no illegal acts and no new points brought up by my opponent constitute an illegal act • One cannot outlaw love or desire and it is ineffective and impractical to outlaw private, consensual sex acts ::Closing:: This debate was very strange to me for a few reasons. Not only did my opponent spend the majority of his time debating non-resolution issues, but he never defended the resolution items he did present and never once argued against my points. In terms of the resolution, I have demonstrated that a law against homosexuality would be unwarranted, inconsistent with current laws, and incredibly difficult to enforce. My opponent has offered no consistent argument against the legality of homosexuality and has offered no reason why legal homosexuality is detrimental to individuals or society. For these reasons, I strongly urge a Con vote! Thanks again, charles15, for the debate. Thanks also to the readers and voters! ::References:: 1. . http://www.debate.org... 2. . http://www.divorcerate.org... 3. . http://bjp.rcpsych.org... 4. . http://depression.about.com...