1432
rating
376
debates
43.22%
won
Topic
#5695
Dual topic : Is homosexuality along with asexuality "sexual orientation" disorders? Do we have a right to judge sexual lifestyles?
Status
Debating
Waiting for the next argument from the contender.
Round will be automatically forfeited in:
00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 5
- Time for argument
- One week
- Max argument characters
- 30,000
- Voting period
- Six months
- Point system
- Winner selection
- Voting system
- Open
1308
rating
326
debates
40.03%
won
Description
Disclaimer : Regardless of the setup for voting win or lose, The aim of this interaction, Is for those that view it, Learn and or take away anything that will amount to any constructive value ultimately. So that counts as anything that'll cause one to reconsider an idea, Understand a subject better, Help build a greater wealth of knowledge getting closer to truth. When either of us has accomplished that with any individual here, That's who the victor of the debate becomes.
Questions on the topic, send a message.
Round 1
I do hope and aim that this exchange is as substance filled as possible not making any offense or disrespect to you or anybody.
Homosexuality and asexuality.
These two sexualities are disorders. What type of disorder?
A physical disorder.
Here's an example of a physical disorder. A person that has backwards limbs is physically out of order as a natural innate bipedal person.
Other examples are tourette syndrome and cerebral palsy . These conditions are out of order with the appropriate function of the body for healthy optimal living.
This is likewise with the sexualities mentioned. Having sexual reproductive organs with no sexual attraction and interest ultimately are out of order with one another.
Have sexual reproductive organs with a desire to use them where it does not complete the order or cycle to their function is out of order.
Now if we can be honest, going by these lines of points, all is true. This has nothing to do with right or wrong or moral or wicked.
But it does roll into the next topic. We have a right to judge what a medical condition is or determine what it is. That's making a judgment. We judge the condition, diagnosis, prognosis and or treatment.
Likewise with sexuality. We have a right or allowance to judge or determine which type of sexuality exists before us, what becomes of it and what defines it.
Notice how I'm using the term judge, see.
We judge either in a professional capacity, medical capacity, intellectual capacity, rational capacity and on and on and on. We judge what the probable outcomes are, the negatives and all like that of all these disorders.
We're allowed to judge them and we allow ourselves to judge them because it concerns us and our well being. It concerns all of humanity. Our health, our physical conditions and conducts matter.
We have laws, we have medical procedures, medical evaluations, medical studies, surveys that contribute to our judgment on how to live and flourish.
Another topic I'm debating about is in regards to freedom of speech. Everything including language has judgment put on it. Everything including actions and behaviors.
Judgment is made to draw a legal line, judicial line, jurisdiction line. For instance, a line for a legal limit to operate a motor vehicle. A line or parameter set forth for the FDA.
Lines set forth for medical and dental care, dietary care, hygienic care,personal care, parental care, public care and of course sexual care.
In that we evaluate ramifications and corrections.
We evaluate and judge the affect or hindrance homosexuality/asexuality has on the population. We evaluate the contributions to society, to children, to education and perhaps religion.
Then off course from the legal standpoint, congress makes judgement. The supreme court makes judgement to legalizing certain things classifying certain things as hate speech to the LGBT. Making amendments and orders to public service organizations to recognize the LGBT .
A judgment has to be made of a homosexual or an asexual. They have to be judged as an equal or not. They have to be judged as someone in a bias to discriminate against or not. They have to be judged to receive the same marital rights, relationship rights and or the same social receptions as any other involved in marriage, in a relationship or parenting/guardianship affair.
So we have the audacity. From the big man down to the common man.
I do hope and aim that this exchange is as substance filled as possible not making any offense or disrespect to you or anybody.
Sure.
Homosexuality and asexuality.These two sexualities are disorders. What type of disorder?A physical disorder.Here's an example of a physical disorder. A person that has backwards limbs is physically out of order as a natural innate bipedal person.Other examples are tourette syndrome and cerebral palsy . These conditions are out of order with the appropriate function of the body for healthy optimal living.
Disorder merely means that something is not achieving the desired goal. But who gets to decide the goal here anyway?
This is likewise with the sexualities mentioned. Having sexual reproductive organs with no sexual attraction and interest ultimately are out of order with one another.
Who decides what order is? Society? Society has already decided that homosexuality isnt a disorder. So what is disorder?
What proof do you have that what you are describing is a disorder? What is "order" and "disorder"? Definition?
Have sexual reproductive organs with a desire to use them where it does not complete the order or cycle to their function is out of order.
Who decides ? Functions, purposes are assigned by mind. People spend most of the day not using their sexual organ.
But it does roll into the next topic. We have a right to judge what a medical condition is or determine what it is. That's making a judgment. We judge the condition, diagnosis, prognosis and or treatment.
By same logic, we can determine that homosexuality isnt a disorder, which brings us back to where we started.
Likewise with sexuality. We have a right or allowance to judge or determine which type of sexuality exists before us, what becomes of it and what defines it.
By same logic, people have a right to judge straight people. After all, "straight" is also a type of sexuality.
We judge either in a professional capacity, medical capacity, intellectual capacity, rational capacity and on and on and on. We judge what the probable outcomes are, the negatives and all like that of all these disorders.
My opponent is using examples of judging to say that judging is okay. This is just circular reasoning.
We're allowed to judge them and we allow ourselves to judge them because it concerns us and our well being. It concerns all of humanity. Our health, our physical conditions and conducts matter.
So your opinion is that you have a right to judge people if it affects your or humanity's health?
By same standard, gay people have a right to judge you because you just happen to affect their goals.
We have laws, we have medical procedures, medical evaluations, medical studies, surveys that contribute to our judgment on how to live and flourish.
And what do you mean by flourish? I kinda doubt that judgment makes lives of gay people better.
Another topic I'm debating about is in regards to freedom of speech. Everything including language has judgment put on it. Everything including actions and behaviors.
If there was a robot which killed people if you told it to, such free speech wouldnt be justified.
Judgment is made to draw a legal line, judicial line, jurisdiction line. For instance, a line for a legal limit to operate a motor vehicle. A line or parameter set forth for the FDA.
How does lines being drawn at one place justify them being drawn at other? Ans who draws them?
Lines set forth for medical and dental care, dietary care, hygienic care,personal care, parental care, public care and of course sexual care.
You just have to explain who draws the line. You are defending that its okay to judge all sexualities.
In that we evaluate ramifications and corrections.We evaluate and judge the affect or hindrance homosexuality/asexuality has on the population. We evaluate the contributions to society, to children, to education and perhaps religion.
So if a person doesnt reproduce, such person should be judged, right? Can you explain why reproduction is good?
Then off course from the legal standpoint, congress makes judgement. The supreme court makes judgement to legalizing certain things classifying certain things as hate speech to the LGBT. Making amendments and orders to public service organizations to recognize the LGBT .
Okay.
A judgment has to be made of a homosexual or an asexual. They have to be judged as an equal or not. They have to be judged as someone in a bias to discriminate against or not. They have to be judged to receive the same marital rights, relationship rights and or the same social receptions as any other involved in marriage, in a relationship or parenting/guardianship affair.
Oh, so now you are talking about judgment in a different sense. Yes, we can judge homosexuals as equals.
However, the topic is about judging homosexuality and all other sexualities, which is something we cant judge without reason.
So present us a reason why we should bother to judge all the sexualities. Sounds like a waste of time, honestly.
Round 2
"Disorder merely means that something is not achieving the desired goal. But who gets to decide the goal here anyway?"
So by this definition anything can be a disorder if it's not the desired goal. This would include healthy people born with no disorders.
If my body is functioning not the way I want it , it is a disorder albeit a doctor will say I have no disorders. My blood tests, everything is normal and in order.
Are you sure you don't want to recant that definition you stated?
"Who decides what order is? Society? Society has already decided that homosexuality isnt a disorder. So what is disorder?"
Society, people, yes decide. A disorder is something out of order like that backwards limb example I gave.
"What proof do you have that what you are describing is a disorder? What is "order" and "disorder"? Definition?"
The proof is the human body .
Order is that which is consistent with another to produce its structured function. Disorder is the opposite of that and apparently your opposing case.
"Who decides ?"
The human body.
"Functions, purposes are assigned by mind. People spend most of the day not using their sexual organ."
Tell me, why would the mind assign the body to ejaculate reproductive semen where it can't impregnate?
Is this consistent to you?
"By same logic, people have a right to judge straight people. After all, "straight" is also a type of sexuality."
Yes that's correct. We make the judgment and can see what becomes of heterosexuality which is a heavily populated planet.
"My opponent is using examples of judging to say that judging is okay. This is just circular reasoning."
I'm not using examples to say judgment is or isn't ok. I'm using them to explain the point of making judgments .
So the opposing side is to argue whether the conclusion I came to about the purpose of judging is correct. If not, the onus is on the opposing side to argue what the purpose of making a judgment is but first define the term judgement.
"So your opinion is that you have a right to judge people if it affects your or humanity's health?
By same standard, gay people have a right to judge you because you just happen to affect their goals."
Absolutely. Any people should make justified judgements. We make judgments all the time to make decisions and make progress. Speaking of goals. In a sports situation, I have to make a judgment on a play to be successful to score a goal. Oh yes .
"And what do you mean by flourish? I kinda doubt that judgment makes lives of gay people better."
Flourish means to sustain, grow, develop, progress, amount to, etc .,etc.,etc.
"If there was a robot which killed people if you told it to, such free speech wouldnt be justified."
Unless it killed people in defense of defenseless people.
"How does lines being drawn at one place justify them being drawn at other? Ans who draws them?"
Depends on the basis and reason. Who draws them is whoever that is . Whom has cause to is whoever that shall be. Everything has reason and cause.
"You just have to explain who draws the line. You are defending that its okay to judge all sexualities."
I've never formed my argument in terms of "ok" or "not ok". I say we have a right to judgment. Question is what type of judgment? These are questions to ask instead of asking who , who, who.
It's more so what we're getting, not who's giving it.
"So if a person doesnt reproduce, such person should be judged, right? Can you explain why reproduction is good?"
Yes a person that doesn't sexually reproduce has been given a judgment. That person that can't sexually reproduce has been judged in medical terms as sterile. Likewise with one that can has been judged as fertile.
Sexual reproduction is looked at as good in a society that defines good for human survival which would be sexual reproduction. Do you follow?
Alright.
"Oh, so now you are talking about judgment in a different sense. Yes, we can judge homosexuals as equals."
No no, re-read the entire first round. This time without reading in your pre-conceived interpretation. This is what I've been explaining the whole round. I've made several illustrations from the medical standpoint to a legal one of making judgments.
The supreme court, a court of law, a small claims judge makes a judgment to the party, in ruling or favor of the defendant or plaintiff.
"However, the topic is about judging homosexuality and all other sexualities, which is something we cant judge without reason.
So present us a reason why we should bother to judge all the sexualities. Sounds like a waste of time, honestly."
We've already judged them. We judged homosexuality as well as asexuality as non reproductive sexualities.
So we're allowed to do that, is that right?
Yes. This way we know what they are.
I'll reiterate the points again from the first round:
"Likewise with sexuality. We have a right or allowance to judge or determine which type of sexuality exists before us, what becomes of it and what defines it."
"This has nothing to do with right or wrong or moral or wicked."
So the opposing side need not to ask about is this moral or good or bad. We're not talking about that .
Not published yet
Round 3
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 4
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 5
Not published yet
Not published yet